A class action lawsuit for women who have been victims of a revenge porn site is targeting the website, Texxxan.com, and its web host Go Daddy
A class action lawsuit for women who have been victims of a revenge porn site is targeting the website, Texxxan.com, and its web host Go Daddy, for invasion of privacy, among other allegations.
Sixteen women signed the lawsuit, filed Friday in Orange County, claiming mental anguish after their private photos were uploaded by exes without their permission, according to a report by the Houston Chronicle.
The WHIR reached out to Go Daddy for comment, but it said it does not comment on pending litigation.
The lawyer representing the class action lawsuit names Go Daddy, Texxan.com, and all subscribing members as defendants, and claims so-called revenge porn websites violate Texas state privacy laws. Go Daddy is named as a defendant as the plaintiffs argue that it is profiting off the “offensive and tortious conduct” of Texxxan.com, according to Mashable.
Obviously the outcome of the lawsuit is unknown, but Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects websites, making them not liable for user-submitted content. Go Daddy should be protected since Section 230’s immunity doesn’t change even if Go Daddy knew it was hosting the website, Ars Technica said.
Texxxan.com is still online and visible to the public, though apparently when the lawsuit was filed last week it was temporarily closed and a members’ only site.
“Go Daddy is profiting off of it. The reality of it is at some level this issue of revenge porn has to become a public discussion and a legislative discussion and it raises issues of corporate responsibility,” John Morgan, the lawyer who filed the suit told Ars. “Why would an organization like Go Daddy want to give its name to this type of website?”
In October 2012, Phoenix NAP found itself in a similar situation, not with a porn site, but with a forum publishing alleged libelous statements against Atlanta’s mayor. Phoenix NAP told the WHIR that the website, Lipstick Alley, did not meet its AUP, and offered the website a refund as well as a referral to another hosting company. Lipstick Alley’s lawyer said Phoenix NAP could have been confident against liability under section 230.
Talk back: Have you ever faced a similar class action lawsuit? Do you think Go Daddy should be held liable for the kinds of content its customer posts? Let us know in a comment.
About Nicole Henderson
Nicole Henderson is the Editor in Chief of the Web Host Industry Review where she covers daily news and features online, as well as in print. She has a bachelor of journalism from Ryerson University in Toronto. You can find her on Twitter @NicoleHenderson.
