G.G. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., No. 22-2621 (7th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 3, 2023.
Download PDF
the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-2621 G.G. and DEANNA ROSE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SALESFORCE.COM, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:20-cv-02335 — Andrea R. Wood, Judge. ____________________ On Petition for Rehearing En Banc or Panel Rehearing ____________________ DECIDED October 18, 2023 ____________________ Before SYKES, Chief Judge, EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, BRENNAN, SCUDDER, ST. EVE, KIRSCH, JACKSON-AKIWUMI, LEE, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. On consideration of defendant-appellee’s petition for rehearing en banc or panel rehearing, led on August 17, 2023, all judges on the panel have voted to deny panel 2 No. 22-2621 rehearing. A judge in regular active service called for a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc, and a majority in active service voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judges Brennan, Scudder, St. Eve, and Kirsch voted to grant the petition for rehearing en banc. Accordingly, the petition for rehearing en banc or panel rehearing by defendant-appellee is DENIED. No. 22-2621 3 SCUDDER, Circuit Judge, joined by ST. EVE, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. While I agree with the panel’s narrow holding that G.G. stated a claim against Salesforce for participation liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1595, I am troubled by the overbroad and unnecessary language in the panel opinion, which risks being read to o er answers to questions not presented in this case. Article III’s Case or Controversy requirement limits federal courts to the resolution of concrete disputes between adverse parties. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559–61 (1992). When our decisions exceed that limitation— when we reason with overbreadth—we risk the issuance of advisory opinions. See Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 362 (1911); see also TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2203 (2021). The majority opinion leaves me with that worry. The opinion clearly explains Backpage’s notorious sex tra cking operations, the widespread awareness of those operations, and the scope of Salesforce’s assistance—which, on the facts alleged in G.G.’s complaint, could only be understood as furthering those a airs. See Slip Op. at 3–6. The panel majority is also right to conclude that § 1595 does not require victim-speci c knowledge. Had the opinion stopped there, nobody would be reading this dissent. But in too many places the opinion goes further and suggests without quali cation that § 1595 participant liability could attach to anyone in a “continuous business relationship” with a sex tra cking operation like Backpage. See Slip Op. at 17–18, 25, 28, 36–37. It also suggests that knowledge can be inferred from the bare allegation that a de 4 No. 22-2621 fendant “repeatedly consulted” with a tra cker about its business without a link to the illegal activity. See Slip Op. at 17. Better to leave tomorrow’s di cult questions about the scope of § 1595 for tomorrow’s cases. To put the point more directly, everyone reading the majority opinion ought to distinguish between the court’s holding and key reasoning and the broader unwarranted commentary suggesting that § 1595 participant liability may apply in expansive ways to more ordinary business relationships. In my respectful view, our full court missed an opportunity to come together to preserve the panel’s essential and sound reasoning and to leave everything else for another day.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
