v. MySpace, 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008). The court upheld immunity for a social networking site from negligence and gross negligence liability for failing to institute safety measures to protect minors and failure to institute policies relating to age verification. The Does' daughter had lied about her age and communicated over MySpace with a man who later sexually assaulted her. In the court's view, the Does' allegations were "merely another way of claiming that MySpace was liable for publishing the communications." Dart v. Craigslist, Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ill. October 20, 2009). The court upheld immunity for Craigslist against a county sheriff's claims that its "erotic services" section constituted a public nuisance because it caused or induced prostitution. Backpage.com v. McKenna, et al., CASE NO. C12-954-RSM Backpage.com LLC v Cooper, Case # 12-cv-00654[SS1] Backpage.com LLC v Hoffman et al., Civil Action No. 13-cv-03952 (DMC) (JAD) The court upheld immunity for Backpage in contesting a Washington state law (SB6251) that would have made providers of third-party content online liable for any crimes related to a minor in Washington state. The states of Tennessee and New Jersey later passed similar legislation. Backpage argued that the laws violated Section 230, the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and the First and Fifth Amendments. In all three cases the courts granted Backpage permanent injunctive relief and awarded them attorney's fees. Backpage.com v. Dart., CASE NO. 15-3047 The court ruled in favor of Backpage after Sheriff Tom Dart of Cook County, Illinois, a frequent critic of Backpage and its adult postings section, sent a letter on his official stationery to Visa and MasterCard demanding that these firms "immediately cease and desist" allowing the use of their credit cards to purchase ads on Backpage. Within two days both companies withdrew their services from Backpage. Backpage filed a lawsuit asking for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Dart granting Backpage relief and return to the status quo prior to Dart sending the letter. Backpage alleged that Dart's actions were unconstitutional, violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution as well as Section 230 of the CDA. Backpage asked for Dart to retract his "cease and desist" letters. After initially being denied the injunctive relief by a lower court, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed that decision and directed that a permanent injunction be issued enjoining Dart