Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc.
824 F.3d 846, 44 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1991, 64 Communications Reg. (P&F) 1453 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act does not immunize an interactive computer service provider from a state law failure-to-warn claim when that claim is based on the provider's own failure to act on information obtained from an outside source, rather than on its role as a publisher of third-party content.
Facts:
- Internet Brands, Inc. owned and operated Modelmayhem.com, a networking website for individuals in the modeling industry.
- Jane Doe, an aspiring model, created a profile on Modelmayhem.com.
- Two men, Lavont Flanders and Emerson Callum, used the website to identify and contact models, whom they would lure to fake auditions under false pretenses.
- At these fake auditions, Flanders and Callum would drug, rape, and videotape the victims for pornography.
- As early as August 2010, Internet Brands learned from an external source—criminal charges filed against the men—about the specific details of this rape scheme and how Flanders and Callum were using Modelmayhem.com to victimize its members.
- Flanders and Callum did not post their own profiles on the website.
- In February 2011, several months after Internet Brands became aware of the scheme, Flanders contacted Jane Doe through the website, pretending to be a talent scout.
- Jane Doe was subsequently lured to a fake audition, where she was drugged, raped, and recorded by Flanders and Callum.
Procedural Posture:
- Jane Doe filed a diversity action against Internet Brands, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (a federal trial court), asserting a single count of negligent failure to warn.
- Internet Brands filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the Communications Decency Act barred the claim.
- The district court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the action with prejudice.
- Jane Doe, as Plaintiff-Appellant, appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Internet Brands, Inc. is the Defendant-Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act bar a state law negligent failure-to-warn claim against an interactive computer service provider, where the claim is based on the provider's failure to warn users of a known danger it learned about from an outside source?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Clifton
No. Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) does not bar the claim because the claim does not seek to treat the website provider as a 'publisher or speaker' of third-party content. The court reasoned that CDA immunity shields providers from liability for information 'provided by another information content provider.' Jane Doe's claim does not arise from content posted by another user; Flanders and Callum posted no profiles, and the suit is not about Jane Doe's own profile. Instead, the claim is based on Internet Brands' failure to warn users about a danger it learned of from an external source (the criminal charges). A duty to warn would require Internet Brands to create and distribute its own content, and liability for failing to create one's own speech is not the same as publisher liability for third-party speech. The court distinguished this case from those involving a failure to remove offensive content, as this claim does not implicate the CDA's core purpose of protecting 'Good Samaritan' filtering of user-generated material.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the broad immunity typically afforded to internet service providers under the Communications Decency Act. It establishes that while platforms are not liable for the content their users post, they may still be held liable under traditional tort principles for their own conduct, such as a failure to warn of a known, specific danger. This holding creates a pathway for holding online platforms accountable for failing to protect users from offline harms when the platform gains knowledge of the danger from external sources, provided the legal claim does not treat the platform as a publisher of user content. Future cases will likely explore the scope of this duty and what constitutes sufficient 'knowledge' to trigger a duty to warn.
