This is one of numerous FOSTA cases seeking to hold Salesforce liable for providing vendor services to Backpage. I describe these as “tertiary liability” cases because Salesforce’s involvement is three hops away from the victim:

sex trafficking victim <== Backpage advertiser/pimp <== Backpage <== Salesforce as backend service provider to Backpage

Normally, it should be pretty obvious that tertiary liability reaches too far. Salesforce had no direct interactions with the victim or the Backpage advertiser; and Salesforce is just one of dozens or hundreds of Backpage vendors who contributed to Backpage’s operations. But FOSTA cases bend these liability expectations. Courts must navigate Congress’ poor statutory drafting and apply the rules in cases involving horrific facts.

Tertiary liability online sounds like the kind of thing that Section 230 might preempt, and indeed Salesforce has defeated some FOSTA cases per Section 230. But not this case–Salesforce’s 230 defense went to the Seventh Circuit, which in 2023 issued a flawed ruling against Salesforce (sadly, I never blogged that ruling).

[My evergreen reminder: Marc Benioff, Salesforce’s CEO and MAGA stan, has shit on Section 230 even though his company keeps invoking Section 230 in its litigation.]

After the Seventh Circuit ruling, the case returned to the district court on remand. Without any possibility of Section 230 immunity and with a stinging Seventh Circuit opinion looming over the case, Salesforce’s latest motion to dismiss goes about as well as you would expect.

FOSTA opinions are hyper-technical and confusing, so I’ll just highlight a few points that stood out to me:

• Salesforce and Backpage were in a “venture,” i.e., Salesforce was a vendor to Backpage’s business.
• The applicable standard for Salesforce’s scienter about Backpage’s criminality is negligence. Salesforce should have inferred that criminality from news reports and public discourse and from its private dialogue with Backpage about its customers requirements. “Plaintiffs’ allegations…show that Salesforce increasingly offered more tailored and proactive support as the relationship progressed. It is not necessary…for Plaintiffs to show that Salesforce engaged with any specific advertisements or moderation practices.”
• Salesforce “participated” in Backpage’s venture because “Salesforce regularly assisted Backpage in configuring, utilizing, and tailoring the software to its needs.” The court acknowledges that “providing limited technology support when a customer has a question about a specific feature would not constitute participation,” but here, “Plaintiffs provide detailed accounts of communications between Backpage and Salesforce showing how Salesforce facilitated the success of Backpage’s business….Salesforce was not at all indifferent to Backpage’s business–it spent the better part of five years actively invested in Backpage’s success.”
• Salesforce “knowingly benefited” from its participation in Backpage’s venture because it earned $1.4M as a service provider to Backpage.

Reading this opinion, it seems like many vendors could become liable for providing standard services to their customers. This puts vendors in the awkward position of having to do their own independent and underinformed risk assessment of the legality of their customers’ businesses, even in situations where courts have not established that legality.[FN] I’m not exactly sure how vendors can manage these evaluations to avoid unwanted legal exposures.

FN: Instead, in Backpage’s case, during the relevant time period, courts had consistently concluded that Backpage was not liable for third-party ads; the Seventh Circuit had chastized Cook County Sheriff Dart for attempting to dissuade Visa and Mastercard from providing payment services to Backpage; and even if Backpage had criminal aspects to its business, it also had legitimate aspects.

Case Citation: G.G. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 2026 WL 45021 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 7, 2026)