Case: 22-20543 Document: 00516799885 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
June 26, 2023
No. 22-20543 Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
John Doe, through Next Friend Jane Roe,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Snap, Incorporated, doing business as Snapchat, L.L.C., doing
business as Snap, L.L.C.,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CV-590
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
John Doe, through his legal guardian, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his claims against Snap Inc. (“Snap”). He argues that in light of
the allegations made against Snap, it cannot claim immunity under § 230 of
the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”). See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2).
However, for the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20543 Document: 00516799885 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/26/2023
No. 22-20543
For nearly a year and a half, John Doe (“Doe”), a minor child, was
sexually assaulted by his high school science teacher, Bonnie Guess-Mazock
(“Mazock”). Mazock utilized the social media platform Snapchat, which is
owned by Snap, to groom Doe by sending him sexually explicit content.
Eventually, Mazock began to meet with Doe outside of the classroom to
encourage and engage in sexual conduct. The abuse was not uncovered until
Doe overdosed on prescription drugs that were either provided or financed
by Mazock.
Doe eventually sued Mazock, the school district, and Snap. Against
Snap, Doe brought claims under Texas law for negligent undertaking,
negligent design, and gross negligence. In response, Snap moved to dismiss
the suit under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing
that inter alia, Doe’s claims were precluded by the CDA.
Relying on this court’s precedent, the district court granted Snap’s
motion. It explained that this court and others have held that § 230 of the
CDA provides “immunity . . . to Web-based service providers for all claims
stemming from their publication of information created by third parties.”
Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008). As Doe’s claims
against Snap were based on Mazock’s messages, the district court found
Snap immune from liability.
On appeal, Doe asks us to revisit this issue. He cites several authorities
in support of his contention that the broad immunity provided by the CDA
goes against its plain text and public policy. However, as Doe himself
acknowledges, this argument is contrary to the law of our circuit: “Parties
complaining that they were harmed by a Web site’s publication of user-
generated content . . . may sue the third-party user who generated the
content, but not the interactive computer service that enabled them to
publish the content online.” MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d at 419; see also Diez v.
2
Case: 22-20543 Document: 00516799885 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/26/2023
No. 22-20543
Google, Inc., 831 F. App’x 723, 724 (5th Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (per
curiam) (“By its plain text, § 230 creates federal immunity to any cause of
action that would make internet service providers liable for information
originating with a third-party user of the service.”). Because we are bound by
the decisions of prior panels until such time as they are overruled either by
an en banc panel of our court or by the Supreme Court, see Jacobs v. Nat’l
Drug Intel. Ctr., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008), we AFFIRM the
judgment of the district court.
3