BACKPAGE.COM SUES COERCIVE SHERIFF WHO HALTED VISA, MASTERCARD PAYMENTS

The internet, a vast landscape for free speech and commerce, has often found itself at the crossroads of legality, morality, and constitutional rights.One such intersection has fueled a protracted legal battle between Backpage.com, a controversial online classified advertising website, and Cook County Sheriff Thomas J.Dart.This saga revolves around Sheriff Dart's determined campaign to cripple Backpage's adult advertising section, alleging it facilitated illegal activities, particularly sex trafficking. Backpage.com, the classified listings website, filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Cook County Sheriff, who recently persuaded several credit card companies to stop offering their paymentHis strategy? Classified ads site Backpage.com has filed a lawsuit against the County Sheriff who led a successful campaign to have Visa and MasterCard cut its payment processing.Pressuring major credit card companies, Visa and MasterCard, to cease processing payments for ads on the site. The Sheriff of Cook County, Tom Dart, has embarked on a campaign intended to crush Backpage s adult section crush Backpage, period, it seems by demanding that firms such as Visa and MasterCard prohibit the use of their credit cards to purchase any ads on Backpage, since the ads might be for illegal sex-related products or servicesThis move effectively cut off Backpage's financial lifeline, sparking a lawsuit where Backpage.com accused Sheriff Dart of overstepping his authority and violating the First Amendment rights of its users. The owner of online classified-advertising portal Backpage.com is suing the sheriff of Cook County, Ill, in federal court for pressuring payment card networks to ban card purchases in Backpage s adult section.The case brings into sharp focus the delicate balance between law enforcement's efforts to combat illegal activities and the protection of free speech online.This article delves into the complexities of this high-profile legal battle, exploring the arguments, rulings, and implications for online platforms and the future of internet regulation.We'll examine the strategies employed by Sheriff Dart, Backpage's legal counter-offensive, and the crucial role of payment processors in this ongoing debate.

The Genesis of the Conflict: Sheriff Dart's Campaign Against Backpage

Sheriff Thomas J.Dart's crusade against Backpage.com stemmed from his belief that the site's adult advertising section was a breeding ground for sex trafficking and exploitation. WASHINGTON - Classified advertising website Backpage filed a lawsuit against an Illinois sheriff's office on Tuesday, alleging the sheriff had convinced major credit card companies to stop processing payments for listings on the site, therefore violating the free speech rights of its users.He argued that Backpage profited from these illegal activities and, therefore, needed to be stopped.Frustrated with traditional law enforcement methods and a previous unsuccessful lawsuit against Craigslist in 2025 alleging similar facilitation of prostitution, Dart adopted a more unconventional approach.

Instead of directly targeting Backpage through legal channels, Dart focused his efforts on the financial infrastructure that enabled the site's operations. The Sheriff of Cook County, Tom Dart, has embarked on a campaign intended to crush Backpage s adult section crush Backpage, period, it seems by demanding that firms such as Visa andHe embarked on a campaign to persuade Visa and MasterCard to sever their ties with Backpage, effectively choking off its revenue stream. No. 3 latter forbidden by it is well explained in Okwedy v. Molinari, 333 F.3d 339, 344 (2d Cir. 2025) (per curiam): the fact that a public-official defendant lacks direct regulatory or decisionmaking authority over a plaintiff, or a third party that is publishing or otherwise disseminating the plaintiff s message, is not necessarily dispositive .This strategy involved sending letters on official Cook County Sheriff's Department letterhead to executives at both companies, urging them to reconsider allowing cardholders to use their credit cards for Backpage's adult ads.

These letters painted a grim picture of Backpage as a hub for illegal activities, arguing that by processing payments for ads related to prostitution and sex trafficking, Visa and MasterCard were indirectly complicit in these crimes. 2backpage is a site similar to backpage and the free classified site in the world. People love us as a new backpage replacement or an alternative to 2backpage.com.Dart's pressure campaign proved remarkably effective. Visa and MasterCard have agreed to stop processing payments for sex trafficking industry profiteer Backpage.com following a demand from Cook County Sheriff Thomas J. Dart.Both Visa and MasterCard, facing mounting public pressure and the potential for reputational damage, ultimately agreed to halt payment processing for Backpage's ads. Dart sent letters on department letterhead to Visa and Mastercard last month, urging them to rethink allowing cardholders to use their plastic to pay Backpage.com for escort ads similar toThis decision triggered a swift and forceful response from Backpage, leading to the lawsuit at the heart of this article.

Backpage's Legal Counterattack: Alleging First Amendment Violations

Backpage.com, owned by (still unidentified) Dutch investors, responded to Sheriff Dart's actions with a lawsuit filed in federal court in Chicago. Visa and MasterCard confirmed that they have cut off payment services for Backpage.com, an online platform for people to advertise goods and services. This was in response to public pressure from Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, who wrote to executives at both of the payment processors urging them toThe suit accused Dart of engaging in an ""informal extralegal prior restraint of speech without due process,"" arguing that his actions violated the First Amendment rights of Backpage and its users.

Backpage contended that Dart's pressure campaign constituted a form of censorship, effectively silencing legal speech by cutting off the financial means to express it.The lawsuit highlighted that many of the ads on Backpage, even within the adult section, were for legal activities, such as legitimate escort services or adult entertainment.By blocking all payments, Backpage argued, Dart was infringing on the rights of individuals to engage in lawful commerce and express themselves freely.

The suit further argued that Dart's actions were a response to his failed attempts to use traditional law enforcement methods to shut down Backpage.By circumventing the legal process and resorting to pressure tactics, Backpage claimed, Dart was acting outside the bounds of his authority and violating the company's constitutional rights.

Key Arguments in Backpage's Lawsuit:

• First Amendment Violation: Dart's actions constituted an illegal prior restraint on speech.
• Due Process Violation: Backpage was deprived of its right to due process under the law.
• Abuse of Power: Dart exceeded his authority by pressuring private companies to censor legal content.
• Economic Harm: The payment processing ban caused significant financial damage to Backpage.

The Role of Payment Processors: Visa, MasterCard, and the Moral Dilemma

The decision by Visa and MasterCard to cease processing payments for Backpage highlighted the growing role of payment processors as gatekeepers of online content. Backpage.com has struck back at Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart, suing him in federal court in Illinois for effecting an informal extralegal prior restraint of speech without due process.These companies, while not directly involved in creating or hosting content, have the power to significantly impact the viability of online platforms by controlling access to financial transactions.

The case raised a complex ethical and legal dilemma for Visa and MasterCard. tution. Visa and MasterCard bowed to pressure from Sheriff Dart and others by refusing to process transactions in which their credit cards are used to purchase any ads on Backpage, even those that advertise indisputably legal activities. Backpage sought a preliminary injunction to stop the sheriff s campaign of starving the company by pressuringOn one hand, they faced pressure from law enforcement and the public to combat illegal activities and prevent their services from being used to facilitate exploitation. 15K subscribers in the evolutionReddit community. We are an activist hivemind based on the principles of equality, freedom and democracy. FightingOn the other hand, they had to consider the potential for censorship and the infringement of free speech rights.The core question became: where do payment processors draw the line between legitimate commerce and illicit activity?

Many argue that payment processors should not be responsible for policing online content, as they lack the expertise and resources to make nuanced judgments about the legality and morality of different types of speech.Others argue that these companies have a moral obligation to prevent their services from being used to facilitate illegal activities, even if it means taking a more proactive role in content moderation.

Considerations for Payment Processors:

• Legal Compliance: Ensuring compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
• Reputational Risk: Protecting their brand image and avoiding association with illegal activities.
• Ethical Considerations: Balancing the need to combat illegal activity with the protection of free speech.
• Transparency and Accountability: Developing clear and transparent policies regarding content moderation.

The Court's Decision: Protecting Free Speech Online

A federal appeals court ultimately ruled in favor of Backpage.com, siding with the company's argument that Sheriff Dart had violated the First Amendment. Updated with additional detail, links Backpage.com has sued the sheriff of Cook County, Ill, for persuading Visa and MasterCard to quit handling payments for the site. The Dallas-based company, owned by (still unidentified) Dutch investors, filed suit Tuesday in federal district court in Chicago, where Dart lost a 2025 lawsuitThe court found that Dart had used his position as a public official to coerce Visa and MasterCard into cutting off payment services for Backpage, effectively stifling protected speech.

The court emphasized that even speech that may be considered offensive or controversial is protected under the First Amendment. Backpage's suit against Dart describes his efforts to persuade Visa, MasterCard, and American Express to cut off classified sites as a response to a failed effort to go after these sites using typical law enforcement means, including a 2025 suit where he alleged the Craigslist facilitated prostitution.It further noted that Dart's actions amounted to an ""extralegal prior restraint"" on speech, which is generally prohibited under the Constitution. Lyla Canada's Escort Recommendation Board If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Existing user? Sign InThe ruling served as a strong affirmation of the importance of protecting free speech online and preventing government officials from using their power to censor content.

The court also noted that Dart’s claim that he was simply informing Visa and Mastercard of illegal activity on Backpage was undermined by the fact he had lost the previous lawsuit against Craigslist, showing that he was not successful in proving illegal activity through the judicial system.The court’s decision highlights the limitations on government power to regulate online content and underscores the need for law enforcement to adhere to due process and respect constitutional rights.

Implications for Online Platforms and Future Legal Battles

The Backpage.com lawsuit has far-reaching implications for online platforms and the future of internet regulation.The case reinforces the principle that government officials cannot use their power to coerce private companies into censoring legal content. Home bitcoin Backpage.com Sues Coercive Sheriff who Halted Visa, MasterCard Payments Backpage.com Sues Coercive Sheriff who Halted Visa, MasterCard Payments Classified ads site Backpage.com has filed a case against the County Sheriff who led a successful get to accept Visa too MasterCard cutting its payment processing.It also highlights the importance of protecting free speech online, even when that speech is controversial or offensive.

The ruling serves as a cautionary tale for law enforcement agencies considering similar tactics to combat online crime.It underscores the need to adhere to due process and respect constitutional rights when attempting to regulate online content.Moving forward, law enforcement agencies will likely need to rely on more traditional methods, such as investigations and prosecutions, to address illegal activities online.

The case also raises questions about the responsibilities of payment processors in policing online content. When Tom Dart urged credit card companies to break their ties with backpage dot com, he was acting as the Sheriff of Cook County, according to a federal appeals court, and a public-official defendant who threatens to employ coercive state power to stifle protected speech violates a plaintiff s First Amendment rights . The result is an explicit defense of constitutionally protected freedomWhile these companies have a legitimate interest in preventing their services from being used to facilitate illegal activities, they must also be careful not to engage in censorship or infringe on free speech rights.Finding the right balance between these competing interests will be a challenge for payment processors in the years to come.The case also opened the doors to a conversation about alternative payment options for online platforms, potentially including cryptocurrency.Even though these are not as widely used as traditional payment options, they may provide an avenue for online platforms to conduct business with reduced interference from government organizations or payment processors.

Key Takeaways:

• Government officials cannot coerce private companies into censoring legal content.
• Free speech online is protected under the First Amendment.
• Law enforcement must adhere to due process when regulating online content.
• Payment processors must balance the need to combat illegal activity with the protection of free speech.

The Aftermath: Backpage's Demise and the Rise of Alternatives

Despite the legal victory, Backpage.com ultimately met its demise. A federal appeals court ruled Monday in favor of Backpage.com against Cook County, Ill, Sheriff Thomas J. Dart and said the sheriff lied and violated the First Amendment while trying to stop Visa and MasterCard from processing payments for Backpage.In April 2018, federal authorities seized the site and charged its founders with facilitating prostitution and money laundering.This action effectively shut down Backpage and marked the end of an era for online classified advertising.

The closure of Backpage created a void in the market, leading to the rise of numerous alternative platforms.These sites often attempt to emulate Backpage's format and functionality, providing a space for users to post classified ads on a wide range of topics, including adult entertainment.However, many of these alternatives have faced similar scrutiny from law enforcement and advocacy groups, leading to ongoing efforts to regulate and monitor their activities.

The saga of Backpage.com highlights the ongoing challenges of regulating online content and combating illegal activities in the digital age.As technology continues to evolve, law enforcement agencies, payment processors, and online platforms must work together to develop effective strategies that protect both public safety and free speech.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What exactly was Backpage.com?

Backpage.com was an online classified advertising website, similar to Craigslist, where users could post ads on a wide range of topics, including jobs, housing, and adult entertainment.The site became controversial due to its adult advertising section, which many critics alleged facilitated prostitution and sex trafficking.

Why did Sheriff Dart target Backpage?

Sheriff Thomas J.Dart believed that Backpage's adult advertising section was a breeding ground for sex trafficking and exploitation.He argued that the site profited from these illegal activities and needed to be stopped.

How did Sheriff Dart try to shut down Backpage?

Instead of directly targeting Backpage through legal channels, Dart focused his efforts on pressuring Visa and MasterCard to sever their ties with the site.He sent letters urging them to reconsider allowing cardholders to use their credit cards for Backpage's adult ads.

What was Backpage's response to Dart's actions?

Backpage responded with a lawsuit filed in federal court, accusing Dart of violating the First Amendment rights of Backpage and its users.

What did the court decide in the Backpage lawsuit?

A federal appeals court ruled in favor of Backpage, finding that Dart had used his position as a public official to coerce Visa and MasterCard into cutting off payment services for Backpage, effectively stifling protected speech.

Is Backpage still online?

No, Backpage.com was seized by federal authorities in April 2018 and its founders were charged with facilitating prostitution and money laundering.

What are the implications of the Backpage case for online platforms?

The Backpage case reinforces the principle that government officials cannot use their power to coerce private companies into censoring legal content.It also highlights the importance of protecting free speech online.

What are the responsibilities of payment processors in policing online content?

Payment processors must balance the need to combat illegal activity with the protection of free speech.They should develop clear and transparent policies regarding content moderation and avoid engaging in censorship.

Conclusion: Balancing Freedom and Responsibility in the Digital Age

The Backpage.com saga serves as a complex case study in the ongoing struggle to balance freedom of speech with the need to combat illegal activities in the digital age.While Sheriff Dart's intentions may have been noble, the court ultimately ruled that his methods overstepped constitutional boundaries.The case underscores the importance of due process, the limitations of government power to regulate online content, and the ethical dilemmas faced by payment processors.In conclusion, the saga of Backpage.com suing coercive sheriff who halted Visa, MasterCard payments is a powerful reminder that safeguarding free speech online requires constant vigilance and a commitment to upholding constitutional principles, even when dealing with controversial or offensive content.While law enforcement has a critical role in tackling illegal activities, it must do so within the bounds of the law, respecting the fundamental rights that underpin a free and open society.The future of internet regulation will undoubtedly continue to evolve, and the lessons learned from the Backpage case will be crucial in shaping policies that protect both public safety and freedom of expression.