The federal appeals court based in Denver agreed on Thursday that the company behind an online marketplace app that connected an Aurora couple to the man who murdered them cannot be held liable for its own alleged role in placing them in harm’s way.

Joseph and Jossline Roland met up with Kyree Brown to purchase a vehicle using the app Letgo, which is now part of OfferUp. Instead, Brown shot the Rolands to death and stole their money. Arapahoe County jurors convicted Brown and he is serving a life sentence in prison.

The Rolands’ children filed suit against Letgo, Inc., alleging negligence, wrongful death and a violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. Chiefly, they argued Letgo’s labeling of Brown as a “verified” seller gave the Rolands a false sense of security when using the marketplace app.

A trial judge initially dismissed the lawsuit, finding no other instances where online platforms were liable for the actions of a user under similar circumstances. A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed the Rolands’ children had not stated a viable legal claim against the app company.

“Letgo had safety guidelines on its platform, warning users to take steps to protect themselves before buying or selling online, to meet in a public place during the day, to find another buyer or seller if there are any doubts about a user’s authenticity, and to take proper precautions even if most Letgo users are trustworthy,” wrote Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich in the panel’s Feb. 1 order. “Thus, in context, Letgo’s statements are not an expression of approval that its platform is safe and that all users are trustworthy.”

The panel did not address an issue that could have had far-reaching implications for online platforms: whether Letgo “created” any information itself on Brown’s profile, thereby giving up its immunity under federal law.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs and Letgo did not respond to emails seeking comment.

As described in the lawsuit, Brown, then 18, created a Letgo account under the false name “James Worthy.” He did not have a “verified user” badge, which users could earn when they accumulated 50 points through a variety of verification mechanisms. Worthy’s profile instead showed he was “verified” with only a phone number.

Joseph Roland corresponded with Brown over the app to purchase a used Toyota RAV4 for $3,000, which, unbeknown to Roland, was stolen. On Aug. 14, 2020, the Rolands met Brown at a shopping center after 11 p.m., with Jossline Roland intending to drive the RAV4 home following the purchase. 

At Brown’s request, the couple followed him to a new location, where Brown attempted to rob the Rolands at gunpoint. He then shot them and fled with the $3,000 in cash. Both Joseph and Jossline Roland died that night. 

“Defendants encouraged Letgo users to trust its ‘verified sellers’ even though Defendants knew all that is required to be ‘verified’ under its policies is a functioning email address,” wrote attorneys in the Roland children’s civil lawsuit against the app company. “Defendants induced Letgo users to believe a verification process is undertaken. These material and false representations were untrue, deceptive, and misleading.”

In response, Letgo argued multiple theories for why it could not be held liable. It first observed Brown’s profile made clear he had not accumulated the 50 points needed to receive a “verified user” badge, and instead contained the true statement that Brown had verified his account solely with a phone number.

Letgo also claimed it was entitled to immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that prohibits online platforms, including social media giants like X and Facebook, from being held liable for the content of their users. 

It was clear, the company argued, “everything that was allegedly misleading about that profile and ad was created and developed entirely by Brown himself.”

In December 2022, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty dismissed the lawsuit. He concluded Letgo was not immune from liability because it did create the “verified” label on Brown’s profile, but, regardless, it was Brown’s criminal actions that caused the Rolands’ deaths.

“Plaintiffs have not cited a single case in which a court held an internet platform potentially liable for violent criminal acts perpetrated by a platform user who lured an innocent consumer into a scheme through means of misrepresentations made by the criminal,” he wrote.

The Roland children appealed to the 10th Circuit, arguing Letgo’s assurances of verification were why their parents chose to use the platform for their transaction over competitors like craigslist.

Letgo made it seem as if “they were speaking to someone who was reputable, credible. That, in fact, had been vetted,” said attorney Daniel Tapetillo during oral arguments.

“And what was the basis for that perception?” asked Tymkovich.

“All of the advertisement and marketing that they do to distinguish themselves from their competitors,” responded Tapetillo.

Ultimately, the panel agreed Letgo’s statements about verification were “insignificant” compared to the actual cause of the Roland’s murders — Brown’s criminal conduct.

“The profile had no reviews and no profile photo. The designation on Mr. Brown’s profile that he was ‘verified with’ his phone number, taken in context, is not an expression of approval that he was trustworthy and did not increase the risk of harm to the Rolands,” wrote Tymkovich.

The panel did not address Letgo’s immunity under Section 230.

The case is Roland et al. v. Letgo, Inc. et al.