Demurrer Filed 10.19.16
Demurrer Filed 10.19.16
Demurrer Filed 10.19.16
1
2
3
4
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
19
22
23
Plaintiff,
v.
24
25
26
27
28
November 4, 2016
November 10, 2016
November 16, 2016
1:30 p.m.
Additional Counsel:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
14
15
Counsel for Defendants Carl Ferrer, Michael Lacey and James Larkin
11
12
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on November 16, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter
as the matter may be heard in Department 61 of the Sacramento County Superior Court, 651
I Street, Sacramento, California 95814, defendants Carl Ferrer, Michael Lacey and James Larkin,
respectively the CEO and former owners of an online publisher, Backpage.com, LLC, pursuant to
California Penal Code 1002-1005, will and hereby do demur to the criminal Complaint filed by
California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and all charges asserted on the following grounds:
8
9
1.
The Demurrer should be sustained under Penal Code 1004(4) and (5) because
the Complaint and the prosecution are legally barred under the First Amendment to the United
10
States Constitution, as the Attorney General seeks to hold an online publisher of third-party speech
11
criminally liable, with no allegation of scienter that Backpage.com knew the specific speech upon
12
which the charges are based was unlawful, much less that the named Defendants had any
13
knowledge of or participated in any way in the creation or posting of the speech. The First
14
Amendment bars the prosecution because imposing an obligation on publishers to review all
15
speech to ensure that none is unlawful would severely chill free expression.
16
2.
The Demurrer should be sustained under Penal Code 1004(4) and (5) because
17
the Complaint and prosecution are legally barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency
18
Act, 47 U.S.C. 230, which grants immunity to interactive computer services such as
19
Backpage.com for any liability based on publishing third-party content or for failing to remove
20
any such content, regardless of any allegations that the website knew or should have known of
21
illegal content. Section 230 expressly preempts all state criminal laws and absolutely precludes
22
the prosecution in this case. Indeed, the Attorney General has admitted she has no authority to
23
bring state criminal charges against Backpage.com for publishing third-party content.
24
3.
The Demurrer should be sustained under Penal Code 1004(2) and (4) because
25
the Complaint does not state facts that constitute public offenses under the criminal statutes
26
charged. Contrary to Penal Code 950, the Complaint (and the supporting declaration it
27
incorporates) fails to allege facts supporting each element of the charged offenses.
28
1
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
a.
With regard to the charges of pimping under Cal. Penal Code 266h, the
Complaint alleges no facts that Mr. Ferrer knew anything about the nine individuals who
posted ads that are the premise for the charges, much less that they were prostitutes, as
required by section 266h. See Wooten v. Superior Court, 93 Cal. App. 4th 422, 437-38
(2001) (directing dismissal of claims based on failure to show defendants had any
are insufficient under Section 266h). Moreover, the First Amendment requires that, as
essential elements of the charges against Mr. Ferrer, the State must allege facts (and
ultimately prove) that he knew of the unlawful nature and content of the specific ads that
10
are the subject of the charges, and, for Counts Two-Six, knew that the individuals involved
11
were minors. Yet, the Complaint and declaration allege no such facts, and do not even
12
allege that Mr. Ferrer ever saw the subject ads or knew anything about them or the
13
14
b.
With regard to the charges of conspiracy under Penal Code 182, the
15
Complaint fails to allege any facts to establish the elements of the crime charged. The
16
Complaint and supporting declaration do not anywhere allege that Messrs. Lacey, Larkin
17
and Ferrer entered into any agreement with anyone, or that they had any specific intent to
18
commit a public offense of pimping as to any individual or engaged in any overt acts even
19
20
(nonexistent) agreement.
21
The demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend, because the charges contained
22
in the Complaint and the Attorney Generals prosecution are absolutely barred by the First
23
Amendment and Section 230 of the CDA and cannot be cured by amendment, and the Complaint
24
does not and cannot state facts that constitute public offenses under the criminal statutes charged.
25
26
Authorities, Request for Judicial Notice (with accompanying Declaration of James C. Grant), and
27
28
2
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
1
2
Respectfully submitted,
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
------
4
5
6
7
8
9
p..
.....:l
.....:l
~
gj
E-E--
10
11
12
13
14
::r:
15
;:2
16
r:/J
17
1---<
>
<t:
Q
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1
II.
BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................2
A.
Backpage.com. ..........................................................................................................3
B.
Unsuccessful Efforts of AG Harris and Other AGs to Shut Down Adult Online
Advertising and Admissions that CDA Section 230 Bars State Prosecutions. .........4
C.
D.
The AGs Arrests and Incarceration of Defendants, Searches and Seizures, and
Opposition to Defendants Efforts to Post Bail. ........................................................7
8
9
10
11
III.
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................8
12
A.
13
B.
The Complaint and Prosecution Are Legally Barred By the First Amendment. ......9
14
C.
The Complaint and Prosecution Are Legally Deficient Under Section 230 of
the CDA, as the Attorney General Has Admitted. ..................................................14
D.
The Complaint Does Not State Facts that Constitute Public Offenses under the
Criminal Statutes Charged. .....................................................................................21
15
16
17
1.
The Pimping Allegations Against Mr. Ferrer Are Wholly Deficient. .....23
18
2.
19
IV.
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 27
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Page(s)
Cases
Almeida v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
456 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2006) ..................................................................................................16
Ashcroft v. ACLU,
542 U.S. 656 (2004) ...................................................................................................................10
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition,
535 U.S. 234 (2002) ...................................................................................................................12
Backpage.com, LLC v. Cooper,
939 F. Supp. 2d 805 (M.D. Tenn. 2013) ............................................................................ passim
Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart,
807 F.3d 229 (7th Cir. 2015) ..........................................................................................11, 12, 22
Backpage.com, LLC v. Hoffman,
2013 WL 4502097 (D.N.J. Aug. 20, 2013) ................................................................5, 11, 18, 19
Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna,
881 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (W.D. Wash. 2012) ......................................................................... passim
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan,
372 U.S. 58 (1963) .....................................................................................................................11
Barrett v. Rosenthal,
40 Cal. 4th 33 (2006)................................................................................................14, 15, 16, 17
18
19
20
21
22
Batzel v. Smith,
333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) ..............................................................................................15, 16
Ben Ezra, Weinstein & Co. v. America Online, Inc.,
206 F.3d 980, 985 n.3 (10th Cir. 2000) ......................................................................................17
Berry v. City of Santa Barbara,
40 Cal. App. 4th 1075 (1995) .....................................................................................................13
23
24
25
26
27
28
ii
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Dombrowski v. Pfister,
380 U.S. 479 (1965) ...................................................................................................................14
Dulaney v. Municipal Court,
11 Cal. 3d 77 (1974) .....................................................................................................................9
Elrod v. Burns,
427 U.S. 347 (1976) ...................................................................................................................14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc.,
519 F.3d 666, 671 (7th Cir. 2008) ..............................................................................................16
M.A. ex rel. P.K. v. Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC,
809 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (E.D. Mo. 2011) ................................................................................21, 22
Mandel v. Municipal Court,
276 Cal. App. 2d 649 (1969) ........................................................................................................9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
People v. Bollaert,
248 Cal. App. 699 (2016) ...........................................................................................................20
People v. Gourlay,
2009 WL 529216 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2009) ......................................................................18
People v. Morante,
20 Cal. 4th 403 (1999)..........................................................................................................25, 26
15
16
17
18
19
People v. Osorio,
235 Cal. App. 4th 1408 (2015) .....................................................................................................8
People v. Superior Court,
49 Cal. 3d 14 (1989) .....................................................................................................................9
People v. Tolbert,
176 Cal. App. 3d 685 (1986) ........................................................................................................8
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
People v. Toledo,
26 Cal. 4th 221 (2001)................................................................................................................25
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union,
521 U.S. 844, 872 (1997) ...............................................................................................10, 13, 17
Ricci v. Teamsters Union Local 456,
781 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2015) .........................................................................................................17
Sea Horse Ranch, Inc. v. Superior Court,
24 Cal. App. 4th 446 (1994) .......................................................................................................26
Smith v. California,
361 U.S. 147 (1959) ...............................................................................................................1, 12
iv
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Statutes
20
18 U.S.C. 2 .....................................................................................................................................21
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
v
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
1
2
9
10
11
12
Fed. R. Crim. P. 17 ...........................................................................................................................23
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vi
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
I.
INTRODUCTION
The Attorney General arrested and incarcerated the CEO of Backpage.com, LLC
(Backpage.com), charging him with pimping under Penal Code 266h, as well as two former
owners of the company (Michael Lacey and James Larkin) on charges of conspiring to commit
pimping, Penal Code 182. The basis for the AGs charges is that third-party users posted ads on
Backpage.com, and the AGs office determined by responding to the ads that the users were
offering prostitution. With no allegations that Backpage.com had any knowledge of thismuch
less that any of the individual Defendants had knowledge or participated in any way in the ads that
10
were created and posted by usersthe Complaint alleges that Defendants are guilty of pimping
11
12
The AGs Complaint and theory of prosecution are frankly outrageous. The AG seeks to
13
impose criminal liability on a website simply because it published and received fees for third-party
14
ads. The AGs chrages directly contravene the First Amendment and the immunity afforded to
15
websites under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. 230.
16
Escort ads on Backpage.com are protected speech under the First Amendment, as several courts
17
have held. The AG cannot arrest, imprison and refuse to release individuals associated with the
18
website simply based on an investigators opinions about what he believes is obvious about
19
escort ads. Courts upholding the First Amendment rights of Backpage.com and its users have
20
rejected the same tack time and again. The First Amendment also expressly precludes state
21
authorities from imposing criminal liability on parties that publish or distribute speech absent
22
proof of scienter, i.e., that the publisher knew the specific information published was unlawful.
23
The Supreme Court so held over fifty years ago, Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959),
24
recognizing the First Amendment prohibits states from imposing criminal liability that would
25
require publishers to review all materials they distribute, because such a requirement would
26
27
28
More specifically, the AGs theory expressly violates Section 230, which Congress enacted
twenty years ago to preserve and promote free speech on the Internet by immunizing website
1
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
operators from liability for publishing content provided by third-party users. Section 230
preempts all contrary state lawsincluding state criminal laws. Indeed, Attorney General Harris
has acknowledged that Section 230 precludes her from prosecuting Backpage.com, but she has
now commenced a prosecution to do precisely what she admits Section 230 prohibits.
The AGs Complaint should be dismissed immediately. The charges the state asserts
amount to a brazen effort to intimidate or shut down an online publisher by using all the criminal
sanctions at the AGs disposal, despite that she has no authority whatsoever to do so.
II.
BACKGROUND
On September 26, 2016, the Attorney Generals office filed the Complaint, charging
10
Mr. Ferrer with nine counts of pimping and attempted pimping under Cal. Penal Code 266h, and
11
charging him and Messrs. Lacey and Larkin with one count of conspiracy based on the same
12
alleged pimping charges.1 In support of arrest warrants, the AG submitted a declaration of Special
13
Agent Brian Fichtner of the California Department of Justice (Fitchner Decl.).2 The Complaint
14
15
The AG coordinated with Texas authorities to arrest Mr. Ferrer at the Houston airport on
16
October 6, 2016, transferring him to California and holding him in custody. Messrs. Lacey and
17
Larkin voluntarily traveled to and appeared in Sacramento, California on October 10, and were
18
arrested and incarcerated that day. In the meantime, on October 6-7, Texas authorities executed
19
search warrants for Backpage.coms offices in Dallas and Mr. Ferrers home.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
More specifically, the Complaint alleges against Mr. Ferrer four counts of pimping under Penal
Code 266h(b)(2) (Counts Two-Four and Six), one count of attempting pimping under Sections
266h(b)(2) and 664 (Count Five), and four counts of pimping under Section 266h(a) (Counts
Seven-Ten). The Complaint also charges Mr. Ferrer in the single conspiracy count under Penal
Code 182 (Count One), along with Messrs. Lacey and Larkin.
2
Materials supporting this motion are provided with the accompanying Motion for Judicial Notice
with Declaration of James C. Grant (MJN). For the Courts convenience, the Complaint, the
Fitchner Declaration and the Texas search warrant for Backpage.com offices are attached to this
Demurrer as Exhibits A, B and C, respectively.
2
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
A.
Backpage.com operates an online classified advertising service through which users can
post ads in a variety of categories, including local places, buy/sell/trade, automotive, rentals, real
estate, jobs, dating, adult, and services. See Fitchner Decl. at 2-3; Backpage.com, LLC v. Cooper,
939 F. Supp. 2d 805, 813 (M.D. Tenn. 2013). The site is organized geographically, by state and
municipality. Id. Users post millions of ads every month, making Backpage.com the second-
largest online classified ad service in the country, after Craigslist. See Fitchner Decl. at 2
10
Backpage.com.
Users provide all the content for ads they post on the website, using an automated
11
interface; Backpage.com does not dictate or require any content. Until July 2015, the website
12
charged for ads in the adult and dating categories, while users could post ads for free in other
13
categories. See Fitchner Decl. at 12; Cooper, 939 F. Supp. 2d at 813, 815 (noting the charges
14
helped to discourage improper posting and state AGs originally encouraged Craigslist to impose
15
16
Backpage.com imposes rules for ads posted on the site, and all users must affirmatively
17
accept the posting rules. Cooper, 939 F. Supp. 2d at 813-14. The rules are designed to prevent
18
improper ads or misuse of the website. The sites Terms of Use also prohibit illegal acts and warn
19
that improper posts will be reported to law enforcement and subject to criminal prosecution. See
20
McKenna, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 1266. The site contains numerous hyperlinks to a User Safety
21
page, which includes phone numbers and links for the National Center for Missing and Exploited
22
Children (NCMEC) and similar resources. Id. Every ad contains a Report Ad button, and
23
Backpage.com has an email address (abuse@backpage.com) for users to identify ads they believe
24
25
26
automated and manual reviews. Id. Through this screening, Backpage.com blocks and removes
27
posts and refers any that may indicate child exploitation to NCMEC. See McKenna, 881 F. Supp.
28
2d at 1266-67. In his declaration, Agent Fichtner confirms that Backpage.coms practices are
3
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
prostitution ad, Backpage.com blocked the ad. Fitchner Decl. at 6-7. On another occasion,
Agent Fichtner attempted to repost an ad that had been removed, but Backpage.com did not allow
it to go through. Id. at 6.
Backpage.com also regularly works with local, state and federal law enforcement officials
by responding to subpoena requests, providing officials with Internet search tools, and removing
posts and blocking users at the request of officials. Cooper, 939 F. Supp. 2d at 814. Here again,
Agent Fichtner attests to Backpage.coms cooperation with law enforcement. After he posted
undercover ads on the website, he contacted Mr. Ferrer, identified himself as law enforcement,
10
said that he had identified a prostitution ad, and asked that it be removed. Backpage.com
11
removed the ad that day (as well as another ad Agent Fichtner had posted), and would not allow it
12
13
B.
14
In 2010, Craigslist shut down its adult services category in response to pressure from a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Unsuccessful Efforts of AG Harris and Other AGs to Shut Down Adult Online
Advertising and Admissions that CDA Section 230 Bars State Prosecutions.
group of state attorneys general.3 Less than a week later, the AGs targeted Backpage.com,
demanding it shut down its adult category.4 Attorney General Harris joined and signed an
August 31, 2011 letter from the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) to
Backpage.com (which was publicly released and promoted by NAAG) demanding that it remove
its adult category as Craigslist had done.5 Yet, NAAGs president at the time admitted the state
AGs have little legal standing to forcibly shut down Backpage.com, because Section 230
22
23
24
25
26
See M. Lindenberger, Craigslist Comes Clean: No More Adult Services, Ever, TIME, Sept. 16,
2010, http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2019499,00.html.
4
27
5
28
See MJN Ex. D (NAAG August 31, 2011 letter to Backpage.com counsel, http://www.ct.gov/ag/
lib/ag/press_releases/2011/083111backpageletter.pdf).
4
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
provides broad immunity to websites for third-party content, presenting a high barrier
In July 2013, AG Harris signed on to another NAAG letter addressed to various members
of Congress, urging that Section 230 be amended to exempt state criminal laws from immunity so
that state authorities could pursue Backpage.com. The letter acknowledged that [f]ederal courts
have broadly interpreted the immunity provided by the CDA, to prevent[] State and local law
enforcement agencies from prosecuting Backpage.com and insisted that [t]his must change.7
The efforts of NAAG and Attorney General Harris to amend Section 230 to allow state
prosecutions of websites have been unsuccessful, as have their other efforts to censor
10
Backpage.com. As discussed below, see Section III.B, three states (Washington, Tennessee and
11
New Jersey) passed criminal laws aimed at Backpage.com, but courts promptly enjoined and
12
struck down all three laws as unconstitutional and preempted by Section 230. See McKenna, 881
13
F. Supp. 2d 1262; Cooper, 939 F. Supp. 2d 805; Backpage.com, LLC v. Hoffman, 2013 WL
14
4502097 (D.N.J. Aug. 20, 2013). And, rather than lessen the CDAs strong immunity to websites,
15
Congress has ratcheted it up by expanding the scope of Section 230 immunity to preempt the
16
enforcement of inconsistent foreign judgments. Doe ex rel. Roe v. Backpage.com, LLC, 104 F.
17
Supp. 3d 149, 156 (D. Mass. 2015) (dismissing under Section 230 private claims alleging
18
Backpage.com violated federal sex trafficking laws), affd sub nom. Jane Doe No. 1 v.
19
Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2016), cert. petition filed, No. 16-276 (U.S. Aug. 31,
20
2016).
21
22
23
24
See MJN Ex. E (Washington AG gubernatorial campaign website quoting press statements about
AGs efforts against Backpage.com and the bar presented by Section 230).
25
26
27
28
See MJN Ex. F (NAAG July 23, 2013 letter to members of Congress, https://www.eff.org/files/
cda-ag-letter.pdf). This letter was promoted by a group within NAAG called the Backpage
Executive Committee, which explained that the purpose of the proposed Section 230 amendment
was to extend[] criminal jurisdiction to state and local governments, because under the law
only the federal government has authority to prosecute websites. See id. Ex. G (June 14, 2013
letter from the Backpage Executive Committee to all Attorneys General, Chief Deputies, and
Executive Assistants, https://www.cdt.org/files/file/AG-Letter-Section-230.pdf).
5
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
C.
The AG asserts eight charges of pimping and one charge of attempted pimping against
Mr. Ferrer based on allegations that nine individuals posted and paid for ads on Backpage.com.
Complaint at 4-9 (Counts Two-Ten).8 The Complaint and declaration provide no basis for these
charges except that Mr. Ferrer is the CEO of Backpage.com and the named partner of the
explains that all of the ads about these individuals were written and posted by the individuals
themselves. Id. at 7-11. The AG does not allege that Mr.Ferrer had any role in or any knowledge
of the ads or that he ever even saw them. Indeed, Agent Fichtner alleges the individuals who
10
posted ads evaded the websites rules and restrictions, so that Backpage.com could not have
11
known the ads were improper or concerned prostitution. Id. at 8, 10 (including statement by one
12
individual: how are they supposed to know Im underage?). The only specific allegations
13
Agent Fitchner offers concerning Mr. Ferrer relating to ads on the website are that he promptly
14
removed ads when requested and he was copied on Backpage.coms responses to numerous law
15
16
Instead, the Complaint charges that Mr. Ferrer is guilty of pimping because the individuals
17
paid for their ads (in amounts totaling $79.60, see Complaint at 3-4), Backpage.com received these
18
payments, and therefore Mr. Ferrer did live and derive support and maintenance from persons
19
engaged in prostitution or solicit[ed] and receive[d] compensation for soliciting for said
20
21
The one-count conspiracy charge alleged against Messrs. Ferrer, Lacey and Larkin is even
22
more attenuated. These gentlemen were, respectively, the chief editor and publisher of Village
23
Voice Media Holdings, the company that formerly owned Backpage.com as well as fourteen
24
weekly newspapers across the country. As Agent Fichtner asserts, they no longer own interests in
25
Backpage.com and havent for almost two years. Fichtner Decl. at 3. Nonetheless, the AG
26
charges them with conspiracy to commit pimping as to the nine individuals who advertised on the
27
28
The nine individuals are identified as: A.C., E.V., L.F., E.S., Z.G., A.H, S.C., L.B., and K.A.
6
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
website (the ads that are the predicate for the claims against Mr. Ferrer) based solely on their
former ownership interests in Backpage.com and that the website charged for escort ads,
employed a process to screen ads, arranged for a processor to handle credit card transactions; and
the nine individuals paid for the ads. Complaint at 2-4. As with Mr. Ferrer, the Complaint and
declaration offer no allegations that Messrs. Lacey and Larkin ever had anything to do with or
D.
The Attorney Generals office did not contact Backpage.com, its counsel, or the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Defendants before moving forward with arrests and searches based on the Complaint
(notwithstanding that Backpage.com has cooperated with the AGs office many times before).
Rather, the AG enlisted Texas law enforcement authorities to arrest Mr. Ferrer on October 6,
2016, as he deplaned in Houston from a flight from Amsterdam, based on the California AGs
Complaint and arrest warrant. The Texas authorities jailed Mr. Ferrer, while the California AGs
office sought to extradite him. Through counsel, Mr. Ferrer agreed to be transferred to California,
and he was flown to Sacramento and incarcerated there on October 7.
On October 6 and 7, 2016, Texas authorities executed search warrants based on the
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Ferrers release. Counsel for Mr. Ferrer sought to make arrangements to post bail, but the
AGs office insisted it would object to any payment of the bail or posting of a bond under Cal.
Penal Code 1275.1, and would demand proof that funds were not tainted as being connected in
some way to revenues from Backpage.com (notwithstanding that AG lacked authority to prosecute
and the Complaint did not and could not allege that all funds associated with Backpage.com were
9
7
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
unlawful). Mr. Ferrers counsel communicated to the AGs office that bond could be posted based
on funds unrelated to Backpage.com (and offered to provide proof), but the AG still insisted that
Mr. Ferrer remain incarcerated until a hearing could be held on its demands under Penal Code
1275.1.
Messrs. Lacey and Larkin agreed to voluntarily travel to and appear to state authorities in
Sacramento on October 10, 2016. They expected and were prepared to post bail (set at $250,000
for each), but, again, the AG insisted that it would contest any bond or bail under Section 1275.1.
While defendants counsel sought to resolve the bail issues as soon as possible, the AG
10
asked for a delay until after the defendants appeared for a public arraignment, which they did on
11
October 12, 2016. The next day, the Court held the 1275.1 hearing and promptly ordered that the
12
defendants be released on bail. Mr. Ferrer was finally released in the early hours of October 14,
13
after he had been held in custody for a week, and Messrs. Lacey and Larkin were released after
14
15
III.
ARGUMENT
16
A.
17
Penal Code 1004 authorizes a defendant to demur to an accusatory pleading that (1) fails
18
to substantially conform to the provisions of Sections 950 and 952, which govern the form and
19
content of accusatory pleadings, (2) alleges facts that do not constitute a public offense, or
20
(3) contains matter which, if true, would constitute a legal justification or excuse of the offense
21
charged, or other legal bar to the prosecution. Id. 1004(2), (4), (5). A demurrer tests only
22
those defects appearing on the face of [the accusatory] pleading, and is appropriate when it
23
raises an issue of law as to the sufficiency of the pleading. People v. Osorio, 235 Cal. App.
24
4th 1408, 1412 (2015) (quoting People v. Manfredi, 169 Cal. App. 4th 622, 626 (2008)). [F]or
25
purposes of demurrer matters which may be judicially noticed may be said to appear
26
constructively on the face of the pleading. People v. Tolbert, 176 Cal. App. 3d 685, 689 (1986).
27
28
Williams v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1, 6 (Cal. App. Dept Super. Ct. 2003) (A
8
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
demurrers purpose under section 1004 is dismissal of a pleading which lacks adequate notice of
the public offense charged or charges one that is unconstitutional so as to generate a legally
sufficient accusation.), disagreed with on other grounds, Osman v. Appellate Div. of Superior
Court, 134 Cal. App. 4th 32 (2005). Indeed, the California Supreme Court has often sustained
demurrers dismissing criminal charges that violate the First Amendment. See, e.g., People v.
Superior Court, 49 Cal. 3d 14, 27 (1989) (sustaining superior court demurrer to charges against
theatre for unlawfully displaying adult films based on standard that violated the First
Amendment); Dulaney v. Municipal Court, 11 Cal. 3d 77, 89 (1974) (sustaining demurrer and
entering writ of prohibition prohibiting prosecution under municipal ordinance precluding posting
10
of signs on utility poles as violating the First Amendment); Whitney v. Municipal Court, 58 Cal.
11
2d 907, 910-11 (1962) (sustaining demurrer to prosecution under municipal obscenity ordinance
12
preempted by state law); see also Mandel v. Municipal Court, 276 Cal. App. 2d 649, 673-74
13
(1969) (reversing trial court decision refusing to grant demurrer and holding that prosecution of
14
defendant under vagrancy ordinance for distributing anti-draft leaflets on high school campuses
15
violated First Amendment). As the case law demonstrates, when the State seeks to prosecute
16
criminal charges that violate the Constitution or as to which the State has no authority, a Section
17
1004 demurrer is the proper remedy to dismiss the charges and stop the prosecution at the outset.
18
B.
19
The Attorney Generals theory of prosecution violates basic principles of First Amendment
20
law. The AGs theory, reflected in the Complaint and supporting declaration, is that the State may
21
prosecute individuals associated with an online publisher simply for publishing third-party speech
22
if it turns out that some content implicates unlawful conduct, i.e. prostitution. Ample Supreme
23
Court precedent expressly rejects such a theory of unknowing criminal liability, given the chilling
24
The Complaint and Prosecution Are Legally Barred By the First Amendment.
25
The AG initiated this prosecution in the face of an unbroken line of cases holding that
26
online forums for classified adsand specifically Backpage.comare protected by the First
27
Amendment. Government officials at various levels have attempted to censor such advertising
28
forums in many ways, and each has been held to violate the Constitution. Speech through the
9
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
Internet is subject to the same First Amendment protections and judicial scrutiny as applied to
other media. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997). And, the First Amendment concerns in
this case are particularly acute, where the state has commenced a criminal prosecution. Ashcroft v.
ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 660 (2004) (speech restrictions enforced by severe criminal penalties, have
the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people).
In a series of cases, federal courts enjoined state criminal laws that targeted Backpage.com,
holding that escort ads on the website are protected speech and states efforts to criminalize
publication violated the First Amendment. First, in Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna, 881 F.
Supp. 2d 1262, the court enjoined enforcement of a Washington state statute that made it a felony
10
to publish, disseminate or display content that contained a depiction of a minor and any explicit
11
or implicit offer of sex for something of value. 881 F. Supp. 2d at 1268. The court rejected the
12
states argument that the law affected only speech proposing illegal transactions, noting that escort
13
ads have long been permitted and escort services are licensed and regulated in many states. Id. at
14
1282;10 see also id. at 1280 (The statue criminalizes more than offers to engage in illegal
15
transactions because the statute encompasses transactions that are not illegal.). The court went on
16
to note that the Washington law was problematic not only because of the protected speech that it
17
regulates by its terms, but also because it would chill a substantial amount of protected speech,
18
by creating a Hobsons choice for websites of either shutting down escort advertising or requiring
19
20
The court in Backpage.com, LLC v. Cooper, 939 F. Supp. 2d 805, struck down a similar
21
Tennessee statute, likewise holding that third-party ads on Backpage.com are protected speech
22
under the First Amendment.11 Here again, the court rejected the states argument that the statute
23
[did] not implicate First Amendment scrutiny because it criminalize[d] only offers to engage in
24
10
25
26
27
28
The same is true in California, as many cities and counties in the state license and regulate
escort services. See, e.g., Sacramento City Code ch. 5.04; San Francisco Police Code, art. 15.6;
Los Angeles County Code ch. 7.38; Orange County Code, tit. 5, art. 22
11
The Tennessee law made it a felony to sell or offer to sell an advertisement that would appear
to a reasonable person to be for the purpose of engaging in what would be a commercial sex act.
Cooper, 939 F.3d at 816.
10
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
illegal transactions, noting that the statutes potential reach extend[ed] to notices related to legal,
consensual activity by adults. Id. at 833-34. As the court aptly said in that case:
4
5
Id. at 813.
In the third case of the trilogy concerning state criminal laws aimed at Backpage.com,
Backpage.com, LLC v. Hoffman, 2013 WL 4502097, the court struck down a New Jersey statute
almost identical to the Washington law that had been invalidated, again rejecting arguments of the
state that escort ads on the website are unprotected speech. Id. at *9-11 (accepting argument that
10
the law would impermissibly burden any Internet forum for communication if it does not
11
12
In each of these cases, state authorities falsely sought to cast all escort ads as ads for
13
prostitution, and each time courts rejected the arguments because the states theories and laws
14
would have burdened broad swaths of constitutionally protected speech. See McKenna, 881 F.
15
Supp. 2d at 1280, 1282; Cooper, 939 F. Supp. 2d at 831; Hoffman, 2013 WL 4502097, at *9-11.12
16
More recently, the Seventh Circuit underscored this point when it enjoined efforts by the Sheriff
17
of Cook County to bully credit card companies into terminating services to Backpage.com based
18
on the same false premise. In Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229, 235-36 (7th Cir. 2015),
19
cert. denied, 2016 WL 1723950 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2016), the Seventh Circuit held that Sheriff Darts
20
threatening letters and other actions toward Visa and MasterCard constituted an unconstitutional
21
prior restraint under Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963). Here too, the Sheriff
22
argued that all ads in the adult section of Backpage.com were unlawful, but the Seventh Circuit
23
rejected the argument and held that First Amendment protections applied. 807 F.3d at 234 (Nor
24
12
25
26
27
28
The courts in the three cases discussed above barred enforcement of the respective state laws
because they forced Backpage.com to choose between foregoing the right to publish third-party
content and risking felony charges. Cooper, 939 F. Supp. 2d at 845. Here, there is not just a risk
but the reality of criminal charges, coupled with incarceration of the individual defendants and
dragnet searches and seizures of the publishers home and business offices. The constitutional
stakes here exceed the possible chilling effect that persuaded courts to invalidate state laws in
McKenna, Cooper, and Hoffman.
11
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
is Sheriff Dart on solid ground in suggesting that everything in the adult section of Backpages
website is criminal, violent, or exploitive.... [N]ot all advertisements for sex are advertisements for
illegal sex.). As Judge Posner wrote, a public official who tries to shut down an avenue of
expression of ideas and opinions through actual or threatened imposition of government power or
sanction is violating the First Amendment. Id. at 230 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Attorney Generals Complaint and theory of prosecution is likewise based on the
flawed (and oft-rejected) premise that the State can assert criminal charges based merely on
allegations that escort ads are illegal or may concern unlawful conduct. The First Amendment
does not permit such a blunderbuss approach. Under the First Amendment, in all contexts, it is the
10
governments burden to establish and justify actions that burden speech rights. United States v.
11
Playboy Entmt Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 816 (2000) (When the Government restricts speech, [it]
12
bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.). In short, the state may not
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress
unlawful speech. Protected speech does not become unprotected merely because
it resembles the latter. The Constitution requires the reverse. [T]he possible
harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is
outweighed by the possibility that protected speech of others will be muted .
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 255 (2002) (quoting Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413
U.S. 601, 612 (1973)).
Thus, it is a basic proposition of First Amendment law that states cannot criminally punish
publishers or distributors of speech without proof of scienter, i.e., sufficient proof that a defendant
knew that the specific speech that is the basis for criminal charges was unlawful. In Smith v.
California, 361 U.S. 147, the Supreme Court struck down a Los Angeles ordinance imposing
criminal sanctions on the sale of obscene books which required no scienter, because absent proof
that a seller had knowledge, he will tend to restrict the books he sells and the law would
impose a severe limitation on the publics access to constitutionally protected matter because the
threat of unknowing criminal liability would cause self-censorship, and the booksellers burden
would become the publics burden. Id. at 153-54. See also Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502,
511 (1966) ([t]he Constitution requires proof of scienter to avoid the hazard of self-censorship of
12
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
constitutionally protected material and to compensate for the ambiguities inherent in the definition
of obscenity). Similarly, in United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994), the
Court interpreted a federal statute prohibiting interstate transfer of child pornography to require
that the government prove a defendant had knowledge of both the sexually explicit nature of
the material and the age of the performers, because a lack of such scienter requirements
would raise serious constitutional doubts. Id. at 78.13 California cases recognize and follow
these constitutional principles, holding that statutes criminalizing the distribution of obscene or
unlawful materials must contain scienter requirements (or be fairly interpreted as doing so)
because otherwise such laws would have an unacceptable chilling effect on the publics access to
10
constitutionally protected materials. Berry v. City of Santa Barbara, 40 Cal. App. 4th 1075, 1087
11
(1995).
12
The AGs Complaint in this case ignores and is irreparably deficient under these First
13
Amendment principles. Nothing in the Complaint or Agent Ficthners declaration alleges that the
14
advertisements posted by the nine individuals upon which the charges are based were unlawful on
15
their face. The declaration states that all of the ads were written and posted by the individuals
16
themselves. There is no allegation that the defendants or anyone from Backpage.com had any role
17
in creating or posting the ads. The AG does not even allege that Mr. Ferrer ever saw or had any
18
knowledge of the ads. The Complaint is still more deficient as to Messrs. Lacey and Larkin, as it
19
alleges that their only connection is that they formerly owned interests in Backpage.com and so
20
should be criminally liable because the website received payments of $79.60 for ads from the nine
21
individuals. The allegations set forth in Agent Fitchners declaration do not even attempt to
22
establish scienter as to any of the defendants for any of the ads that are the basis for the states
23
prosecution. The First Amendment expressly forbids criminal charges on this premise.
24
Criminal sanctions inhibiting free speech rights are among the most pernicious forms of
25
government violations of the First Amendment. See Reno, 521 U.S. at 872 (The severity of
26
13
27
28
See also United States v. United States District Court, 858 F.2d 534, 540 (9th Cir. 1988) (the
first amendment does not permit the imposition of criminal sanctions on the basis of strict liability
where doing so would seriously chill protected speech); Video Software Dealers Assn v.
Webster, 968 F.2d 684, 690 (8th Cir. 1992) (Statutes that impose criminal responsibility for
dissemination of unprotected speech must contain a knowledge requirement.).
13
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
criminal sanctions may well cause speakers to remain silent rather than communicate even
arguably unlawful words, ideas, and images.); Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 494 (1965)
(even as to criminal charges that are groundless, the threat of prosecution is a real and substantial
one that can have a chilling effect on protected expression). Here, the severity of the charges
leveled, and the aggressiveness with which the AG has sought to demonize and punish the
defendants on baseless charges illustrates why this Court should promptly dismiss this
prosecution. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (The loss of First Amendment
freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.).
C.
10
Free speech on the Internet is protected not only by the First Amendment, but also by
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Section 230 of the CDA. [T]he plain language of section 230 creates a federal immunity to any
cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a thirdparty user. Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal. 4th 33, 43 (2006) (quoting Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc.,
129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997)). In simple terms, Section 230 bars any state-law claimscivil
or criminalagainst an online publisher such as Backpage.com (and the defendants) based on
third-party content it publishes. Attorney General Harris knows and has admitted she has no
authority to prosecute Backpage.com for ads it publishes, yet the Complaint and the prosecution
here seek to do exactly that.
Section 230 states: No provider of an interactive computer service shall be treated as
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Complaint and Prosecution Are Legally Deficient Under Section 230 of
the CDA, as the Attorney General Has Admitted.
the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1).14 The statute expressly preempts state laws: No cause of action may be
brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this
section. Id. 230(e)(3).15
14
An information content provider is one responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or
development of information, 47 U.S.C. 230(f)(3), such as users who post on Backpage.com.
15
California courts routinely reject claims based on Section 230 on preliminary motions. E.g.,
Barrett, 40 Cal. 4th 33 (2006) (affirming trial court order granting special motion to strike claims
based on Section 230); Hupp v. Freedom Commcns, Inc., 221 Cal. App. 4th 398 (2013) (same);
Doe II v. MySpace Inc., 175 Cal. App. 4th 561, 563, 566 (2009) (affirming trial court orders
14
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
Congress enacted Section 230 to achieve two goals. First, the statute is meant to
encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet, and to
promote the development of e-commerce. Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1027 (9th Cir. 2003);
accord Barrett, 40 Cal. 4th at 56 (Section 230 reflects legislative commitment to the value of
maintaining a free market for online expression); Delfino v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 145 Cal. App.
4th 790, 802-03 (2006) (CDA was intended to avoid the chilling effect upon Internet free speech
that would arise from imposing liability on companies that do not create potentially harmful
messages but are simply intermediaries for their delivery). Congress recognized the Internet
would be crippled if online providers could be held liable for third-party content, given the
10
volume of material communicated , the difficulty of separating lawful from unlawful speech,
11
and the relative lack of incentives to protect lawful speech. Universal Commcn Sys., Inc. v.
12
Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413, 418-19 (1st Cir. 2007); see Batzel, 333 F.3d at 1034 (absent Section
13
230, speech over the Internet will be chilled rather than encouraged); see 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(4)
14
and (b)(2) (finding the Internet has flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of
15
government regulation, and Section 230 is intended to preserve the vibrant and competitive free
16
17
18
harmful or offensive material by providing immunity for such efforts. See Doe II, 175 Cal. App.
19
4th at 570 (emphasizing Congress intent to remove disincentives for the development and
20
utilization of blocking and filtering technologies (quoting 47 U.S.C. 230(b)(4)); Batzel, 333
21
F.3d at 1028. Congress recognized that if websites undertook to screen or block improper content
22
but could be held liable for doing so imperfectly, they likely would do no screening at all. See
23
Barrett, 40 Cal. 4th at 44 (noting that, in passing Section 230, Congress expressly rejected Stratton
24
Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995 WL 323710 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995), which
25
applied common law principles to hold Prodigy liable as a publisher because it screened and
26
edited some bulletin board messages to prevent offensive content but failed to delete the posts
27
28
sustaining demurrers based on Section 230); Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 816, 819
(2002) (same).
15
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
about which the plaintiff claimed); see also Batzel, 333 F.3d at 1029 (If efforts to review and
omit third-party defamatory, obscene or inappropriate material make a computer service provider
or user liable for posted speech, then website operators and Internet service providers are likely to
The purposes and scope of Section 230 immunity were summarized by the Fourth Circuit
in Zeran, which California courts have followed as [t]he leading case on immunity protection
under Section 230, Doe II, 175 Cal. App. 4th at 569; see Barrett, 40 Cal. 4th at 42-46; Delfino,
Congress purpose in providing the 230 immunity was thus evident. Interactive
computer services have millions of users. The amount of information
communicated via interactive computer services is therefore staggering. The
specter of tort liability in an area of such prolific speech would have an obvious
chilling effect. It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of
their millions of postings for possible problems. Faced with potential liability for
each message republished by their services, interactive computer service
providers might choose to severely restrict the number and type of messages
posted. Congress considered the weight of the speech interests implicated and
chose to immunize service providers to avoid any such restrictive effect.
10
11
12
13
14
15
Zeran, 129 F.3d at 331 (citations omitted), quoted in Doe II, 175 Cal. App. 4th at 569.16
16
Courts have interpreted Section 230 in accordance with its purposes. Thus, California
17
courts have followed the uniform interpretation of the federal circuit courts in holding that Section
18
230 establishes broad immunity for online providers. Barrett, 40 Cal. 4th at 53 (Section 230
19
broadly shield[s] all providers from liability for publishing information received from third
20
parties); Doe II, 175 Cal. App. 4th at 572 (noting consensus to interpret Section 230 broadly).17
21
22
23
16
Congress recognized that some material on the Internet could be harmful, but made a policy
choice that liability could be imposed on the person who creates or develops unlawful content,
but not the interactive computer service provider who merely enables that content to be posted
online. Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 254 (4th Cir. 2009).
24
17
25
26
27
28
See Almeida v. Amazon.com, Inc., 456 F.3d 1316, 1321 (11th Cir. 2006) (circuits have
interpreted [Section 230] to establish broad federal immunity); Carafano v. Metrosplash.com,
Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting consensus that 230(c) provides broad
immunity for publishing content provided primarily by third parties); Green v. Am. Online, 318
F.3d 465, 471 (3d Cir. 2003); Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785, 791 (8th Cir. 2010); Doe v.
MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008); Chi. Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under
Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666, 671 (7th Cir. 2008); Jones v. Dirty World Entmt
Recordings LLC, 755 F.3d 398, 406-07 (6th Cir. 2014); Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354,
16
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
1
2
for the exercise of its editorial and self-regulatory functions about whether to block or allow
content. Zeran, 129 F.3d at 331. [A]ny activity that can be boiled down to deciding whether to
exclude material that third parties seek to post online is perforce immune under section 230. Fair
Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1170-71 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc); accord Doe II, 175 Cal. App. 4th at 572 (Section 230 protects exercise of a
publishers traditional editorial functions, such as editing, altering, or deciding whether or not to
publish certain material); Carafano, 339 F.3d at 1124 ([u]nder section 230(c), so long as a
third party willingly provides the essential published content, the interactive service provider
10
Likewise, the case law uniformly holds that Section 230 forbids claims against a website
11
12
knew or should have known of unlawful content or conduct, as [s]ubjecting service providers to
13
notice liability would defeat the dual purposes of section 230, by encouraging providers to
14
restrict speech and abstain from self-regulation. Barrett, 40 Cal. 4th at 45 (quoting Zeran, 129
15
F.3d at 333). It is, by now, well established that notice of the unlawful nature of the information
16
provided is not enough to make it the service providers own speech. Lycos, 478 F.3d at 420
17
18
By its terms, Section 230 preempts and precludes not only state civil claims but also
19
charges under state criminal laws. Section 230(c)(1) states, without qualification, that [n]o cause
20
of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is
21
inconsistent with this section. 47 U.S.C. 230(e)(3) (emphasis added). While immunity does
22
not extend to prosecutions under a Federal criminal statute, id. 230(e)(1) (emphasis added),
23
state criminal statutes are not exempt from its reach. If Congress had wanted all criminal statutes
24
to trump the CDA, it could have written subsection [230(e)](1) to cover any criminal statute or
25
any similar State criminal statute. Instead, sub-subsection (1) is limited to federal criminal
26
27
28
1359 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Ricci v. Teamsters Union Local 456, 781 F.3d 25, 28 (2d Cir. 2015); Ben
Ezra, Weinstein & Co. v. Am. Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 985 n.3 (10th Cir. 2000); Zeran, 129 F.3d
at 330-31.
17
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
statutes. Voicenet Commncns, Inc. v. Corbett, 2006 WL 2506318, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 30,
2006) (emphasis added). Every court to consider this issue has reached the same conclusion,
holding that Section 230 preempts state criminal laws. See McKenna, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 1275 (If
Congress did not want the CDA to apply in state criminal actions, it would have said so.);
Cooper, 939 F. Supp. 2d at 821-26; Hoffman, 2013 WL 4502097, at *6; People v. Gourlay, 2009
WL 529216, at *3 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2009) (the phrase any State or local law includes
Section 230 provides an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability. Nemet
Chevrolet, 591 F.3d at 254, and, as a result, courts uniformly hold that claims against online
10
providers based on third-party content should be dismissed at the earliest possible opportunity, to
11
avoid costly and protracted legal battles, Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d at 1175. Congresss
12
intent to protect Internet free speech and the purpose of the immunity are effectively lost if a case
13
is erroneously permitted to go to trial rather than being dismissed at the outset. Nemet Chevrolet,
14
591 F.3d at 254; accord Jones, 755 F.3d at 417 ([g]iven the role that the CDA plays in an open
15
and robust internet by preventing the speech-chilling threat of the hecklers veto, we point out that
16
determinations of immunity under the CDA should be resolved at an earlier stage of litigation).
17
In the trilogy of cases striking down state laws aimed at Backpage.com, all three federal
18
courts held that the laws were invalid and Backpage.com was entitled to immunity under Section
19
230. In McKenna, the court held the Washington law impos[ed] liability on Backpage.com
20
for information created by third partiesnamely ads for commercial sex acts depicting minors
21
22
disseminated, or displayed such information. 881 F. Supp. 2d at 1273. In doing so, the law
23
create[d] an incentive for online service providers not to monitor content precisely the
24
situation that the CDA was enacted to remedy. Id.; see also Cooper, 939 F. Supp. 2d at 823
25
18
26
27
28
The legislative history of Section 230 reinforces this conclusion. As originally written, Section
230(b)(5) stated [i]t is the policy of the United States to ensure vigorous enforcement of
criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of
computer. H.R. 1978 (June 30, 1995). But it was later changed to say [i]t is the policy of the
United States to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws . 47 U.S.C.
230(b)(5) (emphasis added).
18
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
(enjoining Tennessee statute because it impose[d] liability on websites such as Backpage.com for
selling or offering to sell advertisements, activity inherent in their role as publishers); Hoffman,
2013 WL 4502097, at *6 (similar law r[a]n[] afoul of Section 230 by imposing liability for
information created by third partiesnamely ads for commercial sex acts depicting minors).
The AGs tack to impose criminal liability on the Defendants for Backpage.coms
publication of third-party content is likewise expressly barred and preempted under Section 230.
Section 230 immunity applies when: (1) the defendant [is] a provider or user of an interactive
computer service; (2) the cause of action treat[s] the defendant as a publisher or speaker of
information; and (3) the information at issue [is] provided by another information content
10
provider. Gentry, 99 Cal. App. 4th at 830 (citing 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1)). All of the elements of
11
the three-part test for Section 230 immunity are established here.
12
13
U.S.C. 230(c)(1). See Roommates.com, 521 F.3d at 1162 n.6 (the most common interactive
14
15
of an interactive computer service within the meaning of CDA Section 230.). The defendants are
16
also entitled to immunity, as Section 230 extends to individuals who operate websites, as well as
17
to the websites themselves. See, e.g., Klayman, 753 F.3d at 1357-58 (Mark Zuckerberg, too,
18
19
computer service and Klaymans complaint seeks to hold him accountable for his role in making
20
21
Second, the AGs charges against Defendants are based on third-party ads on the website,
22
i.e., content provided by other information content providers. The AG nowhere alleges that
23
Defendants authored, created, or participated in posting the ads of the nine individuals. To the
24
contrary, the Complaint and declaration admit the opposite. See, e.g., Complaint at 2 (alleging
25
26
27
allowing user[s] to post advertisements for escorts for certain fees); id. at 7-10 (noting that
28
users identified as A.H. , E.S., A.C. S.C. L.B. E.V. K.A. and L.F. stated that they posted ads on
19
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
Backpage.com). See Delfino, 145 Cal. App. 4th at 807-08 (Section 230 provided immunity to
defendant where the complaint consistently and repeatedly attributes authorship of the offensive
Finally, the charges target Backpage.com for publishing information online and alleged
harms caused by content provided by third part[ies]. Gentry, 99 Cal. App. 4th at 830; see
also id. at 832 (Section 230 forbids putting a website in the shoes of individuals who misused
the site for unlawful purposes). Indeed, the AG admits Backpage.com takes measures to screen
and block inappropriate ads, see Complaint at 2 (alleging Mr. Ferrer developed and oversaw a
process to screen escort ads); Fitchner Decl. at 4 (acknowledging screening process), and the only
10
facts alleged concerning the websites screening and removal of ads are that they were effective,
11
see Fitchner Decl. at 6-7 (stating that he was unable to post ads with inappropriate terms,
12
Mr. Ferrer removed ads as requested, and the website thereafter blocked reposting of the same
13
ads). These are precisely the efforts the CDA was designed to protect, and the AGs charges
14
based on Agent Fichtners opinions about the obvious nature of escort ads or the efficacy of
15
Backpage.coms screening processes are precisely what the CDA prohibits. As Cooper held,
16
Backpage.com is the quintessential publisher contemplated by the CDA: it hosts and maintains
17
an ongoing forum for user-generated postingssome paid, others freethat it shares with the
18
public at large. 939 F. Supp. 2d at 823. See also Doe II v. Myspace Inc., 175 Cal. App. at 573
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
Because there is no dispute here that third-party users created and posted the ads that are the
premise of the AGs charges, People v. Bollaert, 248 Cal. App. 699 (2016), is inapplicable.
There, the Court of Appeal held that a website was not immune under Section 230 because it
forced users to provide information that was itself unlawful and violated privacy rights of
individuals whose compromising photos were posted by other users (i.e., the website required
users to provide names, locations and Facebook addresses of the persons photographed). Id. at
833-34. In so doing, the court followed the narrow exception to Section 230 immunity discussed
in Roommates.com, 521 F.3d 1157. See Goddard v. Google, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1193, 1198
(N.D. Cal. 2009) (Roommates.com carved out only a narrow exception that turned entirely on
the websites decision to force subscribers to divulge the protected characteristics and
discriminatory preferences as a condition of using its services. (internal quotation marks
omitted)); see also Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 629 F. Supp. 2d 663, 665 (E.D. Tex. 2009)
(distinguishing Roommates.com because [t]he Ninth Circuit repeatedly stated that the
Roommates.com website required its users to provide certain information as a condition of its use
. (emphasis in original)).
20
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
(barring claims by four minors against social networking site where they met men who sexually
assaulted them; plaintiffs wanted website to ensure that sexual predators do not gain access to
(i.e., communicate with) minors and [t]hat type of activityto restrict or make available certain
This case does not present a close question. The AGs abuse of prosecutorial powers is
obvious because she has admitted Section 230 preempts state laws and precludes a state criminal
prosecution of Backpage.com. With other state attorneys general, in 2013 she urged Congress to
amend Section 230 because the law prevents State and local law enforcement agencies from
prosecuting Backpage.com, noting the McKenna decision, which held that the CDA preempts
10
state criminal law. MJN Ex. F. The AG knows full well that Section 230 precludes the charges
11
alleged in the Complaint. Yet, she has brought them anyway, in a blatant misuse of prosecutorial
12
authority. This is particularly egregious in the context of threatening a publisher with criminal
13
14
D.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Complaint Does Not State Facts that Constitute Public Offenses under the
Criminal Statutes Charged.
Even setting aside that the AGs prosecution is legally barred under the First Amendment
and Section 230 of the CDA, the Court should grant the demurrer because the Complaint fails to
allege any public offense. Indeed, the AG has failed to allege essentially all of the elements of the
charges or any facts to support any claim.
As noted, the AGs theory is that the state can prosecute a website (and individuals
associated with the website in some way, no matter how attenuated) based on allegations that
users posted content allegedly relating to unlawful conduct, regardless of whether the defendants
knew of or participated in the unlawful activity. Every court that has considered this theory has
rejected it.
For example, the court in M.A. ex rel. P.K. v. Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC, 809 F.
Supp. 2d 1041 (E.D. Mo. 2011), rejected arguments that Backpage.com could be held liable as an
aider and abettor of minor sex trafficking. Id. at 1053-54 (under 18 U.S.C. 2, 2255). Noting
that such a charge requires the government to prove that a defendant participated in a specific
21
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
unlawful venture and acted to make the venture succeed, the court held that accusations attacking
the website fell well short of the specific intent required for aiding and abetting. Id. at 1054.
Sheriff Dart raised and lost a similar claim in Dart v. Craigslist, Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 961
(N.D. Ill. 2009). The court rejected his argument that Craigslist violated criminal prostitution laws
because it had an adult services category, holding this does not cause postings except in the
sense of providing a place where people can post, and websites are not culpable for aiding and
abetting their customers who misuse their services to commit unlawful acts. Id. at 967, 969
(having an adult services category is not unlawful in itself nor does it necessarily call for
unlawful content).
10
More recently, the court in Doe v. Backpage.com, 104 F. Supp. 3d 149, held that
11
accusations attacking the Backpage.com website could not establish affirmative participation in
12
an illegal venture because having an escorts section in a classified ad service, whatever its social
13
merits, is not illegal and other features of the website or allegations about its efforts to screen
14
improper content could not be the basis for criminal liability. 104 F. Supp. 3d at 157. See also
15
Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 2003) (noting that [e]ven entities that know the
16
informations content do not become liable for the sponsors deeds, and asking rhetorically:
17
Does a newspaper that carries an advertisement for escort services or massage parlors aid and
18
abet the crime of prostitution, if it turns out that some (or many) of the advertisers make money
19
from that activity?). A web host cannot be classified as an aider and abettor of criminal
20
activities conducted through access to the Internet any more so than a telephone company aids or
21
abets the sale of tapes or narcotics sold by phone or the Postal Service aids and abets such sales
22
23
intermediary between the advertisers of adult services and visitors to [the] website.
24
25
Similarly, the U.S. Department of Justice has expressly acknowledged that federal sex
26
trafficking laws do not impose criminal liability on websites for publishing third-party content that
27
may concern illegal acts. The DOJs National Coordinator for Child Exploitation Prevention and
28
22
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
Interdiction was asked in Congressional hearings: [W]hat laws apply to Internet providers like
craigslist that would make them criminally liable for the postings? She responded:
I am not aware of any laws that would make them liable [for third-party postings],
unless there was evidence that craigslist was a participant ... conspiring with those
who were misusing their site, that is, knowingly conspiring to violate the laws. . ..
[T]he standard for prosecution would be knowing or willful. ... I am not aware of
anything that shows us that craigslist might be criminally liable. [A]t this point
we have the proper tools. We have what we need to prosecute the guilty, that is,
the people who are using the Internet.... And I don't think anyone ... here would
propose closing the Internet.
Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking: Hearing Before Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, & Homeland
4
5
10
In fact, when the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington later launched a
11
criminal investigation of Backpage.com, the federal court in that district quashed the grand jury
12
subpoenas issued at the governments behest. Backpage.com argued that the subpoenas and
13
investigation violated the First Amendment, see, e.g., Bursey v. United States, 466 F.2d 1059,
14
1087-88 (9th Cir. 1972) (Were we to hold that the exercise of editorial judgments ... raised an
15
inference that the persons involved in the judgments had or may have had criminal intent, we
16
would destroy effective First Amendment protection ....), were unreasonable and oppressive
17
under Fed. R. Crim. P. 17, and reflected an improper motive rather than a legitimate investigation.
18
The courts orders remain sealed, but, as noted, the court quashed the governments subpoenas,
19
20
21
1.
The allegations of the Complaint and incorporated declaration regarding all defendants are
22
wholly deficient in that they allege nothing more than that they were associated with
23
Backpage.com, which published and received $79.60 in payment for ads from nine individuals
24
who allegedly were involved in prostitution. The Complaint and declaration provide no
25
allegations of any knowledge, involvement or participation by any of the defendants in any illegal
26
27
First, with regard to the charges against Mr. Ferrer for pimping, the Complaint and
28
declaration allege only that he is the CEO of Backpage.com, Fitchner Decl. at 2; has been the sole
23
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
named partner of Backpage.coms parent company since late 2014, id. at 3; runs the day-to-day
enforcement subpoenas, id.; had been the recipient of communications from the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children (without mentioning whether this relates to Backpage.coms
regular reporting to NCMEC of suspect ads), id. at 3-4; has publicly acknowledged that
screening process, id.; cooperated and promptly acted to remove an ad that Agent Fitchner had
posted when he told Mr. Ferrer that he was law enforcement and had identified a prostitution
ad, id. at 6; and emailed a payment processor about whether banks might be concerned about
10
11
Otherwise, Agent Fitchner describes information he and other DOJ personnel learned in
12
interviews of the nine individuals about their activities, id. at 7-11; see also Complaint at 4-9;
13
mentions unrelated undercover operations conducted by DOJ (i.e., posting sting ads on the
14
website), id. at 4, and offers his opinion that it [is] plain to any individual that BACKPAGEs
15
16
None of this shows or even alleges that Mr. Ferrer (or anyone at Backpage.com, for that
17
matter) had any connection to any ads of the nine individuals that are the premise for the criminal
18
charges. The AG alleges no facts that Mr. Ferrer ever saw any advertisements of these
19
individuals, much less that he knew any of them were acting as prostitutes, which is the central
20
element of Penal Code 266h (liability applicable only to any person who, knowing another
21
person is a prostitute .); see also CALCRIM 1150. Similarly, there is no allegation whatsoever
22
that Mr. Ferrer derive[d] support or maintenance from the earnings or proceeds of [these]
23
24
[prostitution services] for [these] person[s]. Penal Code 266h.20 Nor does the AG assert any
25
20
26
27
28
24
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
allegations that Mr. Ferrer had any knowledge that the ads posted by the nine individuals were for
unlawful conduct or knew that the individuals who are the subject of Counts Two-Six were
California law does not allow a charge or conviction under Penal Code 266h without
proof that the defendant had knowledge that another person (from whom he obtained support) was
acting as a prostitute. See Wooten v. Superior Court, 93 Cal. App. 4th 422, 437 (2001) (reversing
trial courts denial of motion to set aside information alleging pimping charges against strip club
owners where there was no showing they had knowledge that a dancer had offered to perform a
sex act; pimping requires that a defendant know that another person is a prostitute). So too, the
10
governments obligation is to allege and prove the defendants knowledge of specific acts of
11
prostitution; allegations of general knowledge are not enough. Id. at 438 (rejecting argument
12
that strip club owners could be convicted of pimping or pandering based on general awareness of
13
2.
14
15
16
The Complaints charge of conspiracy to commit pimping against all three defendants,
Complaint at 1-4 (Count One), is also completely deficient under California law.
17
To convict on a charge of conspiracy, the government must prove that the defendant and
18
another person entered into an agreement with the specific intent to commit an offense, as well as
19
the specific intent to commit the elements of that offense, together with proof of the commission
20
of an overt act by one or more of the parties to such agreement in furtherance of the conspiracy.
21
People v. Morante, 20 Cal. 4th 403, 416 (1999) (quoting Penal Code 184). The Complaint
22
alleges none of these elements, and the declaration offers no facts to support any conspiracy
23
charge.
24
25
26
27
28
21
Count Five alleges attempted pimping in violation of Penal Code 266h and 664. Complaint
at 6. This charge would require proof that the defendant had the specific intent to engage in
pimping. People v. Toledo, 26 Cal. 4th 221, 229-30 (2001).
25
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
Again, the Complaint and declaration do not purport to allege that the defendants knew
about any of the supposedly improper advertisements before they appeared on Backpage.com, or
that the ads concerned any illegal activity, or that defendants knew of and agreed to commit any
crime. The allegations concerning Mr. Ferrer (discussed above) do not assert or suggest he
entered into any agreement with anyone with the intent to commit a crime.
The allegations concerning Messrs. Lacey and Larkin are no better. The Complaint and
declaration assert that these gentlemen founded Backpage.com in 2004 and remained controlling
shareholders until 2012, when Backpage.com separated from its former parent company, Fitchner
Decl. at 2; owned and participated in operating Backpage.com until late 2014, Complaint at 2,
10
Fitchner Decl. at 3;22 received communications from NCMEC, as did Mr. Ferrer, Fitchner Decl. at
11
3-4; received regular updates, correspondence, and meeting notices from Mr. Ferrer, id. at 4;
12
received bonuses in September 2014 (before they sold their interests in Backpage.com), id. at 4;
13
and revenues from Backpage.com were once used to pay them salaries and bonuses, id. at 6.
14
15
There is no alleged agreement to commit a crime, no suggestion that Mr. Lacey, Mr. Larkin or Mr.
16
Ferrer intended to commit the crime of pimping, no contention that any man knew that any of the
17
subject ads concerned prostitution or any illegal activity, and not even a hint that they knew
18
anything about or had anything to do with the ads. Instead, the AG charges Messrs. Lacey and
19
Larkin with a criminal conspiracy on the sole basis that they once owned Backpage.com. Such
20
allegations are a far cry from meeting the statutory definition of conspiracy. See Morante, 20 Cal.
21
4th at 416; cf. Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d at 659 ([Under] the ordinary understanding of
22
culpable assistance to a wrongdoer, the defendant must have a desire to promote the wrongful
23
ventures success . ... That web hosting services may be used to carry out illegal activities does
24
not justify condemning their provision whenever a given customer turns out to be crooked.).
25
26
27
28
22
The status of the defendants as corporate officers and shareholders is irrelevant. It is well
settled that [a]n officer of a corporation is not criminally answerable for any act of a corporation
in which he [or she] is not personally a participant. Sea Horse Ranch, Inc. v. Superior Court, 24
Cal. App. 4th 446, 457 (1994) (alterations by Sea Horse Ranch court) (quoting Otis v. Superior
Court, 148 Cal. 129, 131 (1905).
26
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
IV.
CONCLUSION
This prosecution is patently improper, given the obvious disconnect between the charges in
the Complaint and the factual allegations asserted by the AG. The state cannot marshal any facts
even suggesting that the defendants committed any crime. The AG's prosecution tramples First
Amendment rights and is flatly barred by Section 230, as she has admitted. Defendants' demurrer
should be granted without leave to amend, and this proceeding should be swiftly terminated.
Respectfully submitted,
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
9
10
0...
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
11
12
13
14
::r:
15
16
C/)
17
>
~
Q
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27
DEMURRER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, Case No. 16FE019224
EXHIBIT A
--------ill----------------------------------------------------~
I.
2
.4
5
D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
KAMALA
ROBERT MORGESTER
puty Clerk
~-~~~~~~:~~ CA 94244-2550
9
10 '
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
15
v.
16
17
18
19
20
Case No.
EOPLEOFTHE TATEOF
CALIFORNIA,
1. CARL FERRER
(DOB:-)(Xref#s:'cYl'<7'oiD
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
2. MICHAELLACEY
(DOB: - ) (Xref#%'0'f '10 1'3 )
3. JAMES LARKIN
(DOB: -)o(Xref#s'o11ol'1--
21
Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
I, the undersigned, say on information and belief, that in the County of Sacramento, State of
California:
COUNT ONE
(Penal Code sections 182/266h, PIMPING CONSPIRACY)
On or between January I, 2010 and September 26,2016, in the County of Sacramento and
27
28
throughout the state of California, Defendants FERRER, LACEY, and LARKIN did unlawfully
CRIMfNAL COMPLAfNT
commit the crime of CONSPIRACY in violation ofseciion 182(a)(l) of the Penal Code in that.
2
. said Defendants did unlawfully conspire together with each other and with others whose identities
are known and unknown, to commit the crime of pimping, in violation of section 266h of the
Penal Code, a felony; and that pursuant to and for the purposes of carrying out the objectives of
the aforesaid conspiracy, the said Defendants committed the following overt acts, throughout the
7
8
10
II
12
OvertAct2
On or between January I, 2010 and September 26, 2016 Defendants LARKIN, LACEY,
and FERRER operated Backpage.com.
13
14
Overt Act 3.
On or between January I, 2010 and May20!5, Defendants LARKIN, LACEY, and
15
FERRER required users ofBackpage.com to pay to post escort advertisements in the adult
16
17
Overt Act 4
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Overt Act 5
Defendant FERRER directed the creation of two additional websites, Evi!Empire.com and
BigCity.com.
Overt Act 6
Defendant FERRER used content from escort advertisements on Backpage:com to create
advertisements on Evi!Empire.com and BigCity.com.
26
Overt Act 7
27
On or about late 2013, Defendant FERRER arranged for credit card transactions to be
28
processed by Jetpay because financial institutions were blocking transactions with Backpage.com.
2
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
Overt Act 8
2
3
Between October 2014 and May 2015, Backpage accepted at least $2,000,000.00 per month
in payments from people posting adult section advertisements in California.
Overt Act 9
amount of $20.60 for posting an escort advertisement in Sacramento County featuring minor A. C.
7
Overt Act 10
8
On or about August 19,2014, Backpage.com received a credit card payment in the amount
9
. of $12.00 for posting an escort advertisement in Los Angeles County featuring minor E.V.
10
II
12
13
Overt Act 11
On or about February 8, 2015, Backpage.com received a credit card payment in the amount
of $1 0.00 for posting an escort advertisement in Santa Clara County featuring minor L.F.
14
Overt Act12
15
On or about July 25, 2015, Backpage.com posted an escort advertisement in Sacramento
16
County featuring minor E.S.
17
18
19
20
Overt Act 13
On or about February I, 2015, Backpage.com received a payment in .the amount of$10.00
for posting an escort advertisement in Los Angeles County featuring minor Z.G.
21
Overt Act 14
22
On or about October 7, 2012, Backpage.com received a credit card payment in the amount
23
of $7.00 for posting an escort advertisement in Sacramento County featuring A.H.
-24-
26
27
On or aboutJuly 30, 2014, Backpage.com received a payment in the amount of$5.00 for
posting an escort advertisement in Sacramento County featuring S.C.
28
3
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
----------~1------------------------~--~------------------------IL___
Overt Act 16
2
3
On or about August 19,2014, Backpage.com received a credit card payment in the amount
of$12.00 for posting an escort advertisement in Los Angeles County featuring L.B:
4
Overt Act 17
5
On or about April4, 2015, Backpage.com received a credit card payment in the amount of
8
9
COUNT TWO
(Penal Code section 266h(b)(2), PIMPING A MINOR UNDER 16 YEARS OF AGE)
For a further and separate cause of action, being a different offense from, but connected in
10
its commission with, the charge set forth above, on or about and between September I, 2014
II
through December 31, 2014, in the County of Sacramento, Defendant FE~R did unlawfully
12
commit the crime of pimping of minor, in violation of Penal Code section 266h(b), in that said
13
Defendant, knowing A. C. a minor under 16 years of age, to engage in prostitution, did live and
14
derive support and maintenance in whole or in part from the earnings and proceeds of said
15
prostitution or from money loaned to or advanced to and charged against said prostitute by a
16
keeper manager and inmate of a house and other place where prostitution was practiced or
17
allowed or did unlawfully, knowing A.C., a minor under 16 years of age, io engage in
18
prostitution, solicit and receive compensation for soliciting for said prostitute.
19
20
21
NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require you to register pursuant to Penal Code
section 290. Willful failure to register is
acrime.
NOTICE: Pursuant to Penal Code sections 11166 and 11168, a Suspected Child Abuse
22
Report (SCAR) may have been generated in this case. Penal Code sections 11167 and 11167.5
23
limit access to a SCAR. A court-issued protective order is necessary to obtain a copy of the
24
25
26
27
28
report.-COUNT THREE
(Penal Code section 266h(b)(2), PIMPING A MINOR UNDER 16 YEARS OF AGE)
For a further and separate cause of action, being a different offense from, but connected in
its commission with, the charge set forth above, on or about and between August I, 2014 through
4
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
January I, 2015, in the County of Los Angeles, Defendant FERRER did unlawfully commit the
2
3
E.V., to be a prostitute, did live and derive support and maintenance in whole or in part from the
earnings and proceeds of said prostitution or from money loaned to or advanced to and charged
against said prostitute by a keeper manager and irimate of a house and other place where
prostitution was practiced or allowed, or did unlawfully, knowing E.V., to be a prostitute, solicit
8
9
10
i
I
I
II
'
crime of pimping, in violation of Penal Code section 266h(a), in that said Defendant, knowing
NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require you to register pursuant to Penal Code
section 290. Willful failure to register is a crime.
NOTICE: Pursuant to Penal Code sections 11166 and 11168, a Suspected Child Abuse
II
Reporr(SCAR) may have been generated in this case. Penal Code sections 11167 and 11167.5
12
limit access to a SCAR. A court-issued protective order is necessary to obtain a copy of the
13
report.
14
COUNT FOUR
(Penal Code section 266h(b)(2), PIMPING A MINOR UNDER 16 YEARS OF AGE)
15
For a further and separate cause of action, being a different offense from, but connected in
16
its commission with, the charge set forth above, on or about and between JanuarY I, 2015 through
17
February 28,2015, in the County of Santa Clara, Defendant FERRER did unlawfully commit the
18
crime of pimping of a minor, in violation of Penal Code section 266h(b ), in that said Defendant,
19
knowing L.F., a minor under 16 years, to engage in prostitution, did five and derive support and
20
maintenance in whole or in part from the earnings and proceeds of s.aid prostitution or from
21
money1oaned to or advanced to and charged against said prostitute by a keeper manager' and
22
inmate of a house and other place where prostitution was practiced or allowed, or did unlawfully,
23
knowing L.F., a minor under 16 years of age, to engage in prostitution, solicit and receive
24
25
26
c~oiiiji'eiisaiioii
NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require you to register pursuant to Penal Code
section 290. Willful failure to register is a crime.
27
28
5
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
NOTICE: Pursuant to Penal Code sections 11166 and 11168, a Suspected Child Abuse
2
Report (SCAR) may have been generated in this case. Penal Code sections 11167 and 11167.5
limit access to a SCAR. A court-issued protective order is necessary to obtain a copy of the
report.
COUNT FIVE
(Penal Code sections266h(b)(2)/664), ATTEMPTED PIMPING OF A MINOR UNDER 16)
For a further and separate cause of action, being a different offense from, but connected in
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'.
'
-24
25
26
27
its commission with, the charge set forth above, on or about and between July 1, 2015 through
August 31, 2015, in the County of Sacramento, Defendant FERRER did unlawfully commit the
crime of attempted pimping of aminor, in violation of Penal Code sections 266h(a)/664, in that
said Defendant, knowing E.S., a minor under 16 years of age, to engage in prostitution, did live
and derive support and maintenance in whole or in part from the earnings and proceeds of said
prostitution or from money loaned to or advanced to and charged against said prostitute by a
keeper manager and inmate of a house and other place where prostitution was practiced or
allowed, or did unlawfully, knowing E.S., a minor under 16 years of age, to engage in
prostitution, solicit and receive compensation for soliciting for said prostitute.
NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require you to register pursuant to Penal Code
section 290. Willful failure to register is a crime.
NOTICE: Pursuant to Penal Code sections 11166 and 11168, a Suspected Child Abuse
Report (SCAR) may have been generated in this case. Penal Code sections 11167 and 11167.5
limit access to a SCAR. A court-issued protective order is necessary to obtain a copy of the
report.
COUNT SIX
(Penal Code section 266h(b)(2), PIMPING A MINOR)
.. --. --.For a further and separate cause of action, being a different offense from, but connected in
its commission with, the charge set forth above, on or about and between June 1, 2015 through
September 30,2015, in the County of Los Angeles, Defendant FERRER did unlawfully commit
the crime of pimping of a minor, in violation of Penal Code section 266h(b), in that said
28
6
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
------11----------------~----------------
Defendant, knowing Z.G., a minor, to engage in prostitution, did live and derive support and
2
maintenance in whole or in part from the earnings and proceeds of said prostitution or from
money loaned to or advanced to and charged agai.nst said prostitute by a keeper manager and
inmate of a house and other place where prostitUtion was practiced or allowed, or did unlawfully,
knowing Z.G., a minor, to engage in prostitution, solicit and receive compensation for soliciting
7
8
9
NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require you to register pursuant to Penal Code
section 290. Willful failure to register is a crime.
NOTICE: Pursuant to Penal Code sections 11166 and 11168, a Suspected Child Abuse
10
Report (SCAR) may have been generated in this case. Penal Code sections 11167 and 11167.5
II
limit access to a SCAR. A court-issued protective order is necessary to obtain a copy of the
12
report.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'24
25
26
27
COUNT SEVEN
(Penal Code section 266h(a),PIMPING)
For a further and separate cause of action, being a different offense from, but connected in
its commission with, the charge set forth above, on or about and between April28, 2014 through
March 6, 2015, in the County of Sacramento, Defendant FERRER did unlawfully commit the
crime of pimping; in violation of Penal Cocje section 266h(a), in that said Defendant, knowing
A.H., to be a prostitute, did liv~ and derive support and maintenance in whole or in part from the
earnings and proceeds of said prostitution or from money loaned to or advanced t() and charged
against said prostitute by a keeper manager and inmate of a house and other place where
prostitution was practiced or allowed, or did unlawfully, knowing A. H., to be a prostitute, solicit
and receive compensation for soliciting for said prostitute.
: .... COUNTEIGHT---(Penal Code section 266h(a), PIMPING)
For a further and separate cause of action, being a different offense from, but connected in
its commission with, the charge set forth above, on or about and between July I, 2014 through
August 31,2015, in the County of Sacramento, Defendant FERRER did unlawfully commit the
28
7
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
r-
______ _I _ _
- - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - ---- - - -
crime of pimping, in violation of Penal Code section 266h(a), in that said Defendant, knowing
2
S.C., to be a prostitute, did live and derive support and maintenance in whole or in part from the
earnings and proceeds of said prostitUtion or from money loaned to or advanced to and charged
against said prostitute by a keeper manager and inmate of a house and other place where
prostitution was practiced or allowed, or did unlawfully, knowing S.C., to be a prostitute, solicit
7
8
9
COUNT NINE
(Penal Code section 266h(a))
For a further and separate cause of action, being a different offense from, but connected in
10
its commission With, the charge set forth above, on or about and between August I, 2014 and
11
August 31, 2014, in the County of Los Angeles, Defendant FERRER did unlawfully commit the
12
crime of pimping, in violation of Penal Code section 266h(a), in that said Defendant, knowing
13
L.B. to be a prostitute, did live and derive support and maintenance in whole or in part from the
14
earnings and proceeds of said prostitution or from money loaned to or advanced to and charged
15.
against said prostitute by a keeper manager and inmate of a house and other place where
16
prostitution was practiced or allowed, or did unlawfully, knowing L.B. to be a prostitute, solicit
17
18
. COUNT TEN
(Penal Code section 266h(a))
19
20
For a further and separate cause of action, being a different offense from, but connected in
21
its commission with, the charge set forth above, on or about and between January 1, 2016 to June
22
1, 2016 in the County of Sacramento, Defendant FERRER did unlawfully commit the crime of
23
pimping, in violation of Penal Code section 266h(a), in that said Defendant, knowing K.A. to be a
-24
25
proceeds of said prostitution or from money loaned to or-advanced to and charged against said
I
I
26
prostitute by a keeper manager and inmate of a house and other place where prostitution was
27
practiced or allowed, or did unlawfully, knowing K.A. to be a prostitute, solicit and receive
28
'
8
i
''
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
BOTICE: Penal Code section 1203.065(a) prohibits a grant of probation for offenses
charged in counts 2-10).
Pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.5(b), the People hereby informally request that
defense counsel provide the People with discovery as required by Penal Code section 1054.3.
DECLARATION
5
6
declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to Penal Code section 806, that the forgoing is true and
correct.
10
Respectfully Submitted,
11
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
12
13
14
MAGGYKRELL
15
16
17
SA2013311583
32562042
18
19
20
21
22
23
24'
25
26
27
28
9
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
EXHIBITB
Page 1 of14
Your affiant, a California Peace Officer per California Penal Code Section 830.1,
asserts that there is probable cause to believe that beiween January 1, 2010 and
September 28, 2016, FERRER, LACEY, and LARKIN received earnings from
prostitution through the website they created and operated at www.backpage.com. For at
least the last five years, Defendants have known that their website is the United States
hub for the illegal sex trade and that many of the people who advertised for commercial
sex on BACKPAGE are victims of sex trafficking, including children. This affidavit and
accompanying complaint seek to arrest and charge Defendants FERRER, LACEY, and
LARKIN with conspiracy to commit pimping (Penal Code 182/266h) for their
respective roles and stakes in operating BACKPAGE, and FERRER for pimping (Penal
Code '266h) minor victims A.C., E.V., L.F., B.S., Z.G., and adult victims A.H., S.C.,
L.B., and K.A. These victims represent a small fraction of the thousands of Californiabased victims exploited in ads reviewed in this investigation.
The relevant identifying information for the victims is contained in "Confidential
Attachment" and is herein incorporated.
managed the site's operation. In 2012, BACKPAGE separated from its parent company
and LACEY and LARKIN remained controlling shareholders of BACKPAGE while
FERRER became Chief Executive Officer (CEO).
BACKPAGE is similar to Craigslist.org in that it is an on-line general classified
advertising site. The adult services section on BACKPAGE contains ads for prostitution,
body rubs, massages, escort, and other sexual services for.sale. Nearly naked persons in
provocative positions are pictured in nearly every adult services advertisement on
BACKPAGE, and the site charged a fee to the user to post advertisements for '.'escorts"
Page 2 ofl4
July 2015 once credit card companies ceased doing business with BACKPAGE.
When the largest classified service, Craigslist.org, shut down its "Adult Services"
category in 2012, "Adult" ads migrated to BACKPAGE, and BACKPAGE capitalized on
this increased traffic by raising its fees. BACKPAGE also expanded operations, creating
sites in hundreds of cities throughout the world, including over 30 cities in California.
In late 2014, FERRER bought BACKPAGE through two of his .Delaware
companies- CF Holdings and CF Acquisitions- and created BACKPAGE's new parent
company, the Netherlands-based UGC Tech Group C.V. ("UGC"). FERRER is the only
named partner ofUGC and remained the CEO ofBACKPAGE. FERRER publicly
described the sale as part ofBACKPAGE's international expansion.
Additionally, FERRER devised a way to promote BACKPAGE by creating other
prostitution-related sites. BACKPAGE owns and operates Evi!Empire.com and
Bigcity.com using content it developed from BACKPAGE users. According to internaiiy
records obtained via search warrant, this practice increased BACKPAGE's share of the
online sex advertising market.
the site's fee-based "Adult" section to post "Escort" ads that openly offer sexual, lewd
acts for money and have involved individuals under 18 years of age.
Since 2012, the NCMEC has worked on more than 400 cases involving children
sold for commercial sex on BACKPAGE. During this same time period, NCMEC has
reported 2,900 instances to California law enforcement where suspected child sex
trafficking occurred via BACKPAGE.
In May 2014, DOJ agents conducted an undercover sting operation targeting
individuals being advertised in the Adult Escort section of BACKPAGE. The operation
. involved an undercover agent responding to Escort advertisements listed on BACKPAGE
by calling the phone number listed in the ad. Throughout the duration of the operation,
undercover agents arranged several "dates" with female "Escorts." Each "date" resulted
with the "Escort" agreeing to meet the undercover agent in a hotel room. Once in the
hotel room, and within a few minutes of arriving, each "Escort" began negotiating sex
acts for money with the undercover agent. Based on this behavior, there was no
mistaking that the sole purpose of the "Escort" ad posted on BACKPAGE was to offer
sex for money. Each "Escort" was interviewed, but not arrested.
In March 2015, I creaied two undercover advertisements on the website
BACKPAGE. One of the ads was posted in the "Escort" section and offered the service .
of adult companionship for money, the other ad was for the sale of a sofa and was posted
in the "buy, sell, trade" section ofBACKPAGE. The minimum fee to post the "Escort"
ad was $10.00. Posting the sofa was free of charge. BACKPAGE also offers the ability
to upgrade an ad for an additional fee. I upgraded both ads, allowing the ad to be
automatically reposted to the top of the page several times during the day. The total cost
of the "Escort" ad with the upgrade was $11 L20. The total cost of the sofa ad with the
same upgrade was $1.22. Both o~ the ads were posted using the same undercover cell
phone number. DOJ Special Agent (SA) Tera Mackey monitored the undercover cell
phone. Within minutes of the "Escort" ad going live, SA Mackey began receiving calls
and texts. SA Mackey told me she received hundreds of inquiries for the "Escort" ad, but
received only one inquiry for the sofa. SA Mackey said all the calls and texts related to
the "Escort" ad were requests for sexual acts in exchange for money.
Page 5 of 14
I paid for the undercover ads using a Union Bank credit card. Union Bank
provided me with documents showing that the money from my credit card account went
to Borgun H.F., an online payment service in Iceland. IA Robert Smith has reviewed
internal BACKPAGE emails showing the transfer of monies from Borgun H.F. to
BACKPAGE bank accounts in the United States. Revenue from BACKPAGE was used
to pay salaries and bonuses to LACEY, LARKIN, and FERRER.
After letting the undercover ads run for approximately (ten )10 days, I decided to
call BACKPAGE and ask them to remove it. My goal was to learn the process of
removing an "Escort" ad from BACKPAGE that law enforcement identifies as an ad for
prostitution. My first call was to Liz McDougal, BACKPAGE legal counsel, but I
received her voicemail. My next call was to FERRER. When FERRER answered the
phone. I identified myself as law enforcement. I told him that I had identified a
. prostitution ad in the "Escort" section ofBACKPAGE (I did not tell FERRER that I .
posted the ad) and that I was seeking a way to remove the ad. FERRER initially directed
me to report the ad by email to abuse@BACKPAGE, but then he asked .for the name of
the ad. I provided him with the Post ID number for the ad. It was apparent that FERRER
was looking up the "Escort" ad on his computer because I could hear him typing as I
provided him with the Post ID number. He explained that if I report the ad to
abuse@BACKPAGE, I should include my phone number in order to confirm that I was
law enforcement. He mentioned that they have been "spoofed" by individuals claiming
to be law enforcement when they were not.
FERRER told me he located a second ad from the same "user," but it was for a
"sofa" and did not appear to be illegal. FERRER said he would personally report the ad
and "lock it out." He said it would be removed by the end of the day. A short time later, I
searched the website to try and locate the "Escort" ad and the sofa ad, but both ads had
been removed. I tried to repast the "Escort" ad, but Backapge.com did not allow it to go
through.
In May 2015, I created another BACKPAGE "Escort" ad with the goal of trying
to post an ad containing sexual verbiage indicative of a prostitution ad. I used the words
"cum" and "quickie" in the ad, but when I tried to post it, I received a message that told
Page 6 of14
me those words were "forbidden in this category." I had to change the words to "come"
and "quick session" in order for the ad to be accepted.
BACKPAGE may have restricted the use of the sexual verbiage in my undercover
ad, but when I conducted a random search of the BACKPAGE escort section, I viewed
numerous "Escort" ads that contained photos and videos that depicted full nudity. Many
of these nude ads were simulating and/or performing sexual acts. BACKPAGE states
they moderate their ads and implement a policy against posting obscene or lewd imd
lascivious graphics and photographs, however, my personal observations have indicated
otherwise.
BACKPAGE Victims
In October 2015, I interviewed A.H, 27-year-old woman, who was identified as
posting advertisements for commercial sex in the escort section of BACKPAGE. A.H.
was one of the individuals contacted and detained during the DOJ sting operation. A.H.
admitted to posting the advertisements in the escort section of BACKPAGE for the
purpose of offering sex for money. A.H. told me that she began posting escort
advertisements on BACKPAGE after Craigslist.org shut down their escort section and
MyRedbook.com, a prostitution website, was shut down by the federal government. A.H.
told me she received numerous calls from her ads and each time she met the person it
ended with her providing sex for money. A.H. told me she used the money she made
directly from prostitution to pay for the posting fee of her BACKPAGE advertisements.
A search for A.H. 's ads revealed continuous postings for a roughly two-year period,
including after the DOJ operation. These ads were posted in California cities, including
Sacramento, Los Angeles, Monterey, and Modesto.
On October 13, 2015, I interviewed E.S., a 15-year-old female, who has been
identified as a victim of sex trafficking. She told me she was forced into prostitution at
the age of 13 years old by her pimp. She eventually testified against her pimp, bnt once
she was introduced to "The Life" of prostitution, she began finding her own way of
making money. She started with the websiteMyRedbook.com until it was shut down, and
then she immediately began using BACKPAGE. She described BACKPAGE as a
Page 7 of 14
website that "profits off of women and men .... whether you are wanting to get out there
and make some money, or you are being forced to do it." She stated, "I mean really,
coming from someone my age, there is too much access, like it's too easy for people to
get on it and post an ad." A search for her ads found postings in California, including
Sacramento, the East Bay, and Fresno.
On October 22, 2015, I interviewed A. C., a 16 year old female who has been
identified as a victim of sex trafficking. A. C. told me she was forced into prostitution
when she was 12 or 13 years old. A. C. said the first website she used to post prostitution
ads was Craigslist.org. She then used MyRedbook.com until it was shutdown by law
enforcement. A.C. said she began using BACKPAGE in late 2013 or early 2014. A.C.
said she posted her own ads on BACKPAGE and used a prepaid "Green Dot" credit card
to pay the fees. As soon as she posted her ad, she would begin getting calls. A. C. said the
purpose of her ads was to make money by finding "dates" and providing sex for money.
She said she averaged 10-12 "dates" a day. A. C. said t!Je majority ofher "dates" resulted
in having sex for money, but not all. Sometimes she said she would arrange a date just to
rob them. A. C. told me she used the money she made from her "dates" to repast her
prostitution ad on BACKPAGE. I asked A. C. if she knew of any policy restrictions for
advertising on BACKPAGE. A. C. said she knew there was a restriction about posting
adulr ads on their website. I asked if she ever encountered a problem posting in the adult
section on BACKPAGE as a minor. She said, "Well no, because how are they supposed
to know I'm underage?" A search for her ads found Sacramento postings.
On January 8 1 2016, SA Mackey interviewed S.C., a 29-year-old female, who has
been identified as a victim of sex trafficking. She was posted on BACKPAGE for the .
purpose of engaging in sex for money. She described BACKPAGE as a known
prostitution site .. She said BACKPAGE is an escort service to solicit sexual encounters
and the majority of the victims using BACKPAGE have a pimp because there is not
enough time to continually update the advertisement and work at the same time. She said
all the calls she got from her BACKPAGE ad were for sexual services. She said she paid
for her advertisements using pre-paid credit cards. She stated she had two children
Page 8of14
during the time she was being trafficked and never learned how to change a diaper or take
care of a child because she was continually forced to engage in commercial sex.
On April18, 2016, DOJ SA Reye Diaz interviewed Z.G., a 17 year old female
who has been identified as a victim of sex trafficking. She was advertised multiple times
on BACKPAGE. Z.G. told SA Diaz that ihe website did not restrict her from posting the
prostitution ads even though she was a minor. She said all her ads resulted in her
exchanging sex for money. She said she would use the profits from having sex to pay for
more advertisement on BACKPAGE. She said she would purchase a "Green Dot Visa"
from a CVS store and use this card to pay the fee to BACKPAGE that is required to post
the ad. A search for her ads found postings for California cities, including San Gabriel,
San Diego, San Jose, and Los Angeles.
On August 18, 2016, I interviewed L.B., a 23-year-old female, who has been
identified as a victim of sex trafficking. L.B. told me she began using BACKPAGE in
2012 after being introduced to the prostitution lifestyle by her.sister who was also
prostituting. I asked her to describe BACKPAGE and she described it as a "prostitution
thing .... all prostitutes go. on there to sell their bodies." She told me she posted
advertisements in the "Escort" section ofBACKPAGE for the sole purpose to solicit calls
from individuals to have sex for money. I asked her if she everused BACKPAGE for
anything other than posting ads in the "Escort" section and she said "no." She said all of
the individuals she met from her ad ended with her having sex for money. L.B. talked
about having to pay BACKPAGE to post her advertisements. She said she used the
money from having sex to pay for posting or reposting her advertisements. L.B. said she
did not have any other income except for the money she made from prostitution.
Postings of her ads were found in California cities, including Los Angeles, Long Beach,
and the Inland Empire.
L.B. told me she advertised on BACKPAGE with E.V., a 13-year-old female,
who had been previously reported as a runaway to the NCMEC multiple times. In 2014,
E.V. was identified as a sex trafficking victim during a prostitution sting operation where
she encountered an undercover officer who was negotiating sex acts for money. The
Page 9 of14
undercover officer met E.V. through their BACKPAGE ''Escort" ad. L.B. 'sand E.V. 's
"Escort" ad was posted in Long Beach and Los Angeles, CA.
On Augnst 11, 2016, SA Tera Mackey and I interviewed K.A., a 21 year old
female that is believed to be a victim of sex trafficking. K.A. said she was 18 years old
when she started posting "Escort" ads on BACKPAGE. K.A. said that 80-90% of the
people she met through her ad ended up paying to have sex with her. K.A. said she made
up to $1,000.00 a day and would use a portion of that money to repast her ads. K.A. said
she had a boyfriend who knew she was posting ads onBACKPAGE, but denied that he
was involved. K.A. told me she has paid for most of her escort ads using Bitcoin. K.A.
explained that she would buy Amazon gift cards and then sell them on the website
Paxful.com for Bitcoin. K.A. said she learned about BACKPAGE from friends who also
posted "Escort" ads. K.A. has only used BACKPAGE to post "Escort" ads. K.A. said
she knows people can use BACKPAGE to sell other things, but she has never known
anyone to use BACKPAGE for anything other than the "Escort" section. I asked K.A. if
BACKPAGE ever prevented or interfered with her posting "Escort" ads on its website
and she said no. K.A. said she knew that BACKPAGE.did not allow certain words,
langnage, or nudity in the ads so she avoided those things. Her ads were found posted in
Sacramento, CA.
On March 11, 2015, L.F., a 15-year-old female, testified in a California Superior
Court as a victim of sex trafficking. I reviewed the transcripts of her testimony. L.F.
testified that she went on-line and met a 32-year-old male adult, identified as Patrick
SIMMONS, in November 2014 and began "sexting" with him. She said they met in
person for the first time in Januar)i 2015 and began having a sexual relationship. L.F.
said their relationship evolved to the point where she began prostituting for SIMMONS
to make him money. L.F. testified she created an escort advertisement for SIMMONS to
post on BACKPAGE. L.F. testified that the escort ad was set up for her to meet
individuals for "dates" that resulted in her having sex for money. L.F. said the money
she made from these dates went directly to SIMMONS. L.F. testified that SIMMONS
became physically violent and controlling. She described how SIMMONS would hit her
and force her to have sex with him. In February 2015, L.F. and SIMMONS were caught
Page 10 of 14
during a prostitution sting by the San Jose Police Department after an undercover officer
called the phone number in L.F. 's escort. ad and arranged a "date." SIMMONS was
subsequently charged with pimping, pandering, and human trafficking. I have been able
to identify four ( 4) BACKPAGE escort ads for L.F. that were posted in February 2015 in
which BACKPAGE charged a total of $35.00 for the posting fees. The ad locations
include the California city, Fresno and the East Bay area.
I was able to obtain transaction records through BACKPAGE verifying that each
of the above victims, with the exception of B.S., made payments to BACKPAGE for their
advertisements.
BACKPAGE Finances
DOJ Investigative Auditors Darrel Early and Robert Smith examined
BACKPAGE's internal financial records and revenue spreadsheets, which we obtained
via search warrant. Their examination focused on BACKPAGE revenue that was
attributable to California-based sales.
The BACKPAGE revenue report obtained includes California-based revenue
covering the time period of January 2013 through May 2015, broken down into six
regions. BACKPAGE internal records break out the percentage of revenue attributable to
Adult Services. From January 2013 through March 2015,99% ofBACKPAGE's gross
revenue (worldwide income) was directly attributable io Adult ads. In April 2015, this
percentage dropped to 97% and in May 2015, it further dropped to 90%. The timing of
this decrease coincides with the decision of credit card companies like American Express
to stop processing BACKPAGE payments.
During this 29-month period, BACKPAGE's gross monthly income from
California rose $1.5 million/month to $2.5 million/month. During this reporting period
(Jan 2013- May 2015), BACKPAGE self-reported $51,723,615.23 in revenue derived
from California. Approximately $50,920,739.36 of this derived from adult entertainment
advertising (98.43%). Further examination of BACKPAGE records demonstrated that
California, during this reporting period (Jan 2013- May 2015), was responsible for
14.95% ofBACKPAGE's worldwide income.
Page 11 of 14
BACKPAGE internal records further break down the revenue that is attributable
to adult entertainment. Adult ads include the subcategories of: Adult Jobs; Body Rubs;
Datelines; Domination; Female Escorts; Fetish; Male Escorts; Strippers; and Transsexual
Escorts. BACKPAGE records state that the worldwide revenue for these subcategories
. for June 22-28, 2015 was $3,137,646.28. Revenue attributable to California for this week
was 17% of the total revenue or $545,952.54. Female Escorts generated 72.8% of this
revenue; Body Rubs 18.8%; and Transsexual Escorts 5.5%. All othei: subcategories were
less the 1%.
Until July 2015, BACKPAGE required payment for ads featuring content related
to commercial sex acts, particularly in the Escort category. These payments could be
made by credit card. Durfng the same time, BACKPAGE allowed users to post ads for
free in non-Adult sections of the site, such as furniture sales.
To avoid scrutiny by banks or other credit card processors BACKPAGE
controlled the nature of the customer information provided to the payment processor. In
a May 2015 email I reviewed, FERRER asked this question of one of his payment
processing partners:
porn_star--.com
Naked_goddes~.com
We could send an account number instead? Do the banks see these email
addresses when we send the transaction to the processor? We think for
example Chase might block transactions for their card holders based on
overtly sexy email address names ...
In July 2015, major credit cards stopped processing BACKPAGE transactions and
BACKPAGE began to allow users to post Adult ads for free. Nonetheless, BACKPAGE
has continued to collect fees for promoted or sponsored ads and created complex
payment processing procedures to avoid detection from financial institutions.
Page 12 of 14
Conclusion
Under California law, it is a felony to either solicit on behalf of a prostitute, or
derive any income, from the earnings of a prostitute. 1 (Penal Code section 266h,
Pimping.) Section 266h also has a special provision detailing added penalties for the
pimping of a minor, depending on whether the victim is und~r 16 or between 16 and .18
years old. 2
BACKPAGE's escort services section essentially operates as an online brothel.
Transactions consist of a user paying a fee to BACKPAGE. In exchange for the fee,
BACKPAGE advertises on behalf of and solicits clients for prostitution services. The ads
unequivocally sell sexual services, featuring extremely provocative pictures and lightly
veiled or coded sexual terminology. BACKPAGE receives a fee for each ad.
~RRER
derived support from the earnings of victims A. C., E.V., L.F., Z.G., A.H.,
S.C., L.B., and K.A., who were sold for sex through BACKPAGE while FERRER served
as CEO overseeing every aspect of the company, including law enforcement
correspondence related to sex trafficking, moderation of ad content, and expansion and
development.
Based on tlie aforementioned information, I believe ther~ is probable cause to
believe that FERRER, LACEY, and LARKIN, committed the following crimes:
conspiracy in violation of Penal Code section 182, (a)(1), a felony; pimping in violation
"[D]eriving support with knowledge that the other person is a prostitute is all
that is required for violating the section in this manner. No specific intent is required."
(!'eople v. McNulty (1988) 202 Cai.App.3d 624, 630.)
2
Mistake of age is not a defense to this offense; the age only affects the severity
of the sentence not the criminality of the conduct. (People v. Branch (2010) 184.
Cal.App.4th 516.)
Page 13 of14
of Penal Code section 266h, subdivision (a), a felony; pimping a minor in violation of
Penal Code section 266h, subdivision (b)(2), a felony; and attempted pimping of a minor
in violation of Penal Code sections 266h, subdivision (b)(2) and 664, a felony; and that
an arrest warrant be issued for Defendants for the relevant felony violations charged in the
accompanying Felony Complaint.
Carl FERRER:
Texas
Residence on file
ACJIZOlla
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that all facls
contained in this affidavit is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Page 14 of 14
EXHIBIT C