>“Salesforce knew the scourge of sex trafficking because it sought publicity for trying to stop it," according to the complaint.
Allegedly salesforce had a PR campaign against human trafficking and prostitution and knew backpage was in the business of facilitating the same when it elected to do business with backpage and that their software would specifically be used to facilitate this part of the business.
Too many time I have seen evidence like this, only to later see that the dates changes the context.
Did Salesforce have a PR campaign against human trafficking and prostitution before or after Backpage got seized by U.S. authorities in April 2018? Before or after Backpage became a customer? Before or after the adult section? Before or after it was generally known to include sex trafficking (which given a glance on the wikipedia article is sometimes around 2012-ish?
The other question is why did it take U.S. authorities until April 2018, 14 years after backpage was launched and 6 years after it was generally known? Were they incompetent, a lack of resources, or what? Did saleforce has knowledge that the police did not, and if so when, and why was it not given over to the police? How long time was the investigation and was salveforce involved? Was it a legal grey zone and as such the opinion of lawyers was involved, which we don't know the context or dates of? Did Saleforce get advice from the prosecutor/police?
This case is interesting but to me almost all the important details are currently not public.
"The company is helping to sponsor an anti-human-trafficking event in April"
It also said its nonprofit arm spotlighted groups that worked on the front lines of the issue in 2017, which could be said to be PR campaign but it is stretching the meaning of a PR campaign a bit.
"The lawsuit includes an order form billed to Backpage that’s dated in December 2016."
Which dates before the campaign done after April 2018, and after the nonprofit arm spotlighted groups in 2017.
So the dates did matter as I suspected. Saleforce did not first do a PR campaign and then elected to do business with backpage (as will_brown said above). They first elected to do business with backpage, had a nonprofit arm spotlighted groups a year later and then did the PR campaign after the police seized Backpage. That implies strongly that the PR campaign was a reaction to the police seizure.
It’s also not a legal requirement of the claims (it’s just facts that play well to a jury). The threshold legal issue is did salesforce know or should SF have known their goods/products were being used by backpage to facilitate human trafficking/prostitution.
As for the subject matter if saleforce knew in 2016 what the FBI acted on in 2018, I don't know. It leaves me with several large questions, the biggest being about why the site lasted for as long as it did. The FBI received continuously information about child sex trafficking and prostitution, and had several court cases dating back to at least 2010.
From a moral perspective its an valid discussion to ask if saleforce should consider their ethical consideration of how their customers utilize their goods and products, but from a legal perspective I kind of look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpage#Legal_decisions and see a complete failure from the legal system to tell the world if the behavior of backpage was illegal. It would not surprise me if saleforced did ask their lawyers and got a OK back.
Gonna wait on the courts for this one, so far its all too much implied and nothing for actual facts.
They haven’t “even attempted to prove their claims?” Have you read the plaintiffs Complaint? What do you think they brought the lawsuit for if not to prove their claims?
I stated "waiting for the courts" where they would prove their claims.
Specifically, I'm not going to form an opinion on an article with no facts
It’s very odd you say the article has “no facts”, yet it provides dates for these business dealings, invoices and salesforce anti human trafficking/prostitution efforts...what do you consider a fact? Do you believe salesforce had no idea what backpage was doing and how salesforce products facilitated the same?
While waiting years for the court to decide, you should kno statistically there is less than 10% chance there is a trial that goes to verdict and >90% chance salesforce settles with a requirement of confidentiality and no admission/finding of wrong doing/liability.
That isn't illegal, and doesn't prove what was known by the company at the time.
>and salesforce anti human trafficking/prostitution efforts
Which again, doesn't prove the company knew anything about the client or what the customizations are being used for.
So far we know that salesforce provided services to a company like it does many other companies. We don't know if it participated knowing the business/use case. Those are the facts I"m talking about.
So while you seemingly make your mind up on allegations without facts, I'll wait for facts or otherwise wait to make up my mind. If those facts don't come out, then my mind just doesn't get made up.
Even as I speak, a California House Rep (Nunes) is suing a non-existent creature for social media defamation. Nunes cannot prove his claims.
Hell, we have an entire class of laws (anti-SLAPP laws) which exist penalize nuisance lawsuits filed for the sole purpose of silencing or harassing defendants.