Question

Jane Doe sued ModelMayhem,alleging that site knew of her assailants criminal history and failed to warn her. what's result.

Answer 1

JANE DOE NO. 14 V. INTERNET BRANDS, INC., No. 12-56638 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Court Description: Communications Decency Act. The panel withdrew the opinion filed on September 17, 2014, and in a superseding opinion reversed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal, as barred by the Communications Decency Act, of an action against Internet Brands, Inc. alleging liability for negligence under California law based on a failure to warn; and remanded for further proceedings. Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act provides that “[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” Plaintiff Jane Doe sought to hold Internet Brands liable for failing to warn her about information it obtained from an outside source about how third parties targeted and lured victims through Internet Brand’s website modelmayhem.com, a networking website for people in the modeling industry. The panel held that the Communications Decency Act did not bar Jane Doe’s failure to warn claim under California law. The panel concluded that Jane Doe’s negligent failure to warn claim did not seek to hold Internet Brands liable as the “publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), and therefore the Communications Decency Act did not bar the DOE V. INTERNET BRANDS, INC. 3 claim. The panel expressed no opinion on the viability of the failure to warn allegations on the merits.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 17, 2014.