[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-10338 ____________________

M.H., J.H., On behalf of their minor child, C.H., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus OMEGLE.COM LLC,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-00814-VMC-TGW USCA11 Case: 22-10338 Document: 84-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2024 Page: 2 of 25

2 Opinion of the Court 22-10338

____________________

Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The facts of this appeal underscore that the internet in gen- eral and social media in particular pose grave risks to children. When C.H. was eleven years old, a stranger connected with her through Omegle.com, an online social media platform that places people in video chatrooms. The stranger then tricked and threat- ened C.H. into making child pornography. Unfortunately, this problem is not unique to Omegle.com. Our precedents reflect that child predators use many other online platforms to find and exploit their victims. See, e.g., United States v. Woodson, 30 F.4th 1295, 1307 (11th Cir. 2022) (affirming the conviction and sentence of a criminal who used social media to identify and abuse hundreds of girls). Through her parents, C.H. sued Omegle.com LLC. She al- leged that Omegle.com violated 18 U.S.C. § 2255, known as “Ma- sha’s Law,” by knowingly possessing child pornography. She also sued Omegle.com for violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which forbids knowingly benefitting from participation in a sex trafficking venture. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1595. The district court dismissed her claims under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. That section provides that for purposes of civil liability, “[n]o provider . . . of an interac- tive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by” a user. 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)). USCA11 Case: 22-10338 Document: 84-1 Date Filed: 12/09/2024 Page: 3 of 25

22-10338 Opinion of the Court 3

C.H.’s appeal presents two questions of statutory interpre- tation. First, we must decide whether she stated a claim under Ma- sha’s Law for the knowing possession of child pornography. We conclude that she has not. Second, we must decide whether C.H. can bring her sex trafficking claim because of an exception to sec- tion 230 under the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (“FOSTA”). We believe she cannot. The FOSTA exception applies only to con- duct that meets the standard for criminal liability for sex trafficking. See Does 1-6 v. Reddit, Inc., 51 F.4th 1137 (9th Cir. 2022). Here, C.H. does not plausibly allege that Omegle.com had actual knowledge that it benefited from sex trafficking, which is the standard for crim- inal liability. Accordingly, we affirm the district court. I.

The facts of this appeal are nothing short of horrific. M.H. and J.H. are suing on beha