Free Speech VS Child Safety: Ongoing Litigation Examines Complicity in Child Sex Trafficking

Sex trafficking isn’t limited to minors. Both adult and child survivors of sex trafficking can file civil claims against traffickers and businesses that knowingly benefited from those operations.

HOUSTON, TX, February 18, 2026 /24-7PressRelease/ — When does doing business with a known trafficking enterprise cross the line into participation? The case of G.G. v. Salesforce, which includes our firm’s founding attorney Tommy Fibich on the plaintiff’s legal team, forced courts to confront that question. The lawsuit, most recently heard in the Seventh Circuit, does not accuse Salesforce of creating ads or trafficking children. Instead, it’s about whether a technology company can be held accountable for providing business infrastructure that helped a trafficking platform grow—even after the platform’s role in child exploitation became widely known.

This case is a good example of the balance between long-standing free speech protections for technology companies and federal laws designed to combat sex trafficking. Courts are starting to scrutinize technology that goes beyond hosting speech and into enabling exploitation.

What Is the G.G. v. Salesforce Sex Trafficking Lawsuit About?

G.G. v. Salesforce is a civil lawsuit. The case was brought (through her mother) by a survivor of child sex trafficking under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). The plaintiff alleged that Salesforce knowingly benefited from providing a venture that engaged in sex trafficking with their customized software.

The case focuses on Salesforce’s conduct rather than third-party content, specifically its relationship with Backpage. Backpage was a classifieds website, similar to Craigslist, that had an “adult services” section that became a leading platform for trafficking and prostitution. According to the lawsuit, Salesforce supplied Backpage with customer relationship management tools that helped organize advertisers and track revenue, among other duties. These services continued after Backpage’s involvement in sex trafficking became publicly known.

An Illinois federal court initially dismissed the case, but a split Seventh Circuit panel reversed that decision on August 3, 2023. The court held that the allegations were sufficient to proceed under the TVPA. Salesforce later sought rehearing and rehearing en banc, arguing the ruling stretched the statute too far. In October 2023, the Seventh Circuit declined to revisit the decision. This allowed the lawsuit to move forward.

How Backpage Operated as a Trafficking Platform

Backpage presented itself as a classified advertising site. However, its adult services section was a primary marketplace for sex trafficking. Traffickers used the platform to advertise victims, including minors. This was usually done through coded language and pricing structures designed to avoid detection.

Law enforcement agencies repeatedly identified Backpage as a trafficking hub. The company knew ads involved minors, but they actively edited postings to conceal the illegal conduct. Federal authorities eventually seized the website. Backpage executives faced criminal charges.

The lawsuit against Salesforce alleges that Backpage’s operations relied on more than ad hosting. Backend business tools allowed the platform to manage high-volume advertisers and scale its operations. In other words, when a technology company supplies tools that make sex trafficking possible, we’re arguing that support is active participation in a trafficking venture—not a neutral business relationship.

What Are the Laws Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA)?

The TVPA offers survivors the opportunity to sue anyone who knowingly benefits from participation in a sex trafficking venture. The law doesn’t require survivors to prove that a defendant directly trafficked them or intended to do them harm. A civil claim under the TVPA generally argues that the defendant:

1. Knowingly received something of value,
2. As a result of participating in a venture,
3. That engaged in sex trafficking,
4. While knowing (or having reason to know) the venture involved trafficking.

Congress drafted the law to reach facilitators and profiteers, not just traffickers. “Something of value” can include service and licensing revenue, or other compensation. “Participation” can include conduct that helps the venture operate or expand.

Free Speech Concerns vs. Combating Child Sex Trafficking

Salesforce relied heavily on free speech principles and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This law generally prevents online platforms from being treated as the “publisher” of third-party content—that is, the platform isn’t responsible for what its users post. Salesforce argued that our claims attempted to impose liability based on content posted by others.

The Seventh Circuit rejected that framing, at least at the current stage. The court differentiated between publishing speech and providing services that allegedly helped a trafficking operation succeed. The ruling did not decide the case on the merits. It only holds that Section 230 does not automatically bar claims that are based on “non-expressive conduct.”

The case wasn’t unanimously decided. The dissenting judges were concerned that the ruling could broaden liability for companies doing business with bad actors. The majority, however, held that free speech protections don’t extend to shielding companies from accountability if their conduct supports criminal exploitation.

Legal Options Available for Survivors of Sex Trafficking

Sex trafficking isn’t limited to minors like G.G. Both adult and child survivors of sex trafficking can file civil claims against traffickers and businesses that knowingly benefited from those operations. In fact, they can file even when a company never interacted directly with the survivor.

Every case is different, so it’s important to consult an experienced sexual assault civil attorney to learn more about your options. Potential defendants may include business partners that facilitated operations, payment processors, property owners, technology service providers, and website operators.

Civil lawsuits can provide compensation for physical and emotional harm and other long-term losses from the exploitation. These cases also play a broader role by exposing systems that allow trafficking to persist.

Each claim depends on specific facts. Cases can turn on what the defendant knew, when they knew it, and how their conduct supported the venture. G.G. v. Salesforce shows that courts may allow survivors to move forward if they can plausibly show the defendant knowingly participated and benefited.

Contact Our Firm If You or a Loved One Has Been Harmed by Sex Trafficking

Fibich, Leebron, Copeland & Briggs represents survivors in complex civil litigation. Our lawyers have extensive experience handling cases against powerful defendants, including major companies like Salesforce.

Survivors of sex trafficking may have civil legal options under state or federal law. Our office is located in Houston, Texas, but we represent clients nationwide. Contact Fibich, Leebron, Copeland & Briggs today to learn more.

The Houston personal injury attorneys of Fibich, Leebron, Copeland & Briggs are strong advocates for abused women. They represent victims of human trafficking, sexual assault, and other forms of personal injury. They are headquartered in Houston, TX, and handle cases throughout the nation. To learn more about the firm, visit https://fibichlaw.com/ or call them at (713) 496-0549.

# # #