Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc.
824 F.3d 846
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Jane Doe, an aspiring model, alleged two men used ModelMayhem.com to lure, drug, rape, and videotape her; she sued Internet Brands (owner of ModelMayhem) for negligent failure to warn under California law.
- Flanders and Callum allegedly used fake identities to contact models off-site; they did not post profiles on the site. Jane Doe alleges she was contacted "through" ModelMayhem and later assaulted in Florida.
- Internet Brands purchased Model Mayhem in 2008 and allegedly learned (from outside sources and criminal charges) by 2010 that the two men used the site to target victims, but did not warn users.
- Jane Doe claimed Internet Brands had a "special relationship" with users imposing a duty to warn (Tarasoff-based theory); she sought damages for negligence based on the alleged failure to warn.
- The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, concluding Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) barred the claim. Jane Doe appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit assumed the complaint's facts true for the Rule 12(b)(6) review and addressed solely whether the CDA precluded the state-law failure-to-warn claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CDA §230(c)(1) bars Jane Doe's negligent failure-to-warn claim | Internet Brands obtained outside knowledge of predators and thus can be liable under state law for failing to warn users (duty based on special relationship) | CDA immunity bars suits that treat an interactive service as the publisher or speaker of third-party content, so failure-to-warn claim is precluded | The CDA does not bar the negligent failure-to-warn claim because the duty would require Internet Brands to publish its own warning (content it created), not to be treated as publisher of another's content |
Key Cases Cited
- Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard: assume complaint allegations true on motion to dismiss)
- Campbell v. Allied Van Lines Inc., 410 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 2005) (statutory interpretation principles for §230)
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (§230 bars claims that treat websites as publisher/speaker of third‑party content; negligent removal theory barred)
- Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) (§230 immunity in defamation context for user‑generated content)
- Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (§230 construed narrowly; immunity does not create blanket protection)