Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc.

Last updated

Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc.
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case nameJane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc., DBA Modelmayhem.com
ArguedFebruary 7, 2014
RearguedMarch 8, 2015
DecidedMay 31, 2016
Citation(s)767 F.3d 894
Case history
Prior historyAppeal from C.D. Cal.
Holding
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not bar claims against online service providers regarding criminal offenses by their users.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Mary M. Schroeder, Richard R. Clifton, Brian M. Cogan
Case opinions
MajorityRichard R. Clifton
Laws applied
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc., 767 F.3d 894 (2014), is a 2014 ruling at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the legal liability of an Internet service provider for criminal offenses committed by its users. [1] The ultimate ruling in the case has caused confusion over the amount of liability faced by service providers during such incidents.

Contents

Background

Jane Doe (a pseudonym) was a member of Model Mayhem, a networking website for aspiring models owned by Internet Brands. Another user lured her into a fake modeling audition and then drugged and raped her, recording the incident for a pornographic video. In 2012, Doe filed a lawsuit against Internet Brands alleging negligence under California law, based on failure to warn her of the risks of using the Model Mayhem service. [1]

Doe alleged that Internet Brands had known of the criminal activity amongst the site's users. and sought $10 million in damages. [2] This allegation was based on the fact that two people had already been arrested for similar activity at the site. In 2007, Emerson Callum and Lavont Flanders were arrested for luring and victimizing at least five women in a scheme similar to the one used by Doe's rapist. In 2011, Callum and Flanders were convicted of sex trafficking and sentenced to twelve consecutive life terms in prison. [3] However, while Doe's case was in progress, Internet Brands claimed that they did not know about the Callum and Flanders case and other criminal activity at the Model Mayhem site, having purchased the site in 2008 and not being informed of the litigation by the previous owners. [2]

District court ruling

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled in 2012 that Internet Brands was not liable for informing users, such as Doe, of potential dangers as the company was protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields online service providers from legal liability regarding the behavior of their third-party users. [4]

Citing Doe v. MySpace, Inc. , Judge John F. Walter concluded that based on "well-settled authority", Internet Brands did not have a duty to warn its users of harm. The interpretation of the court was that Section 230 grants immunity to all web-based service providers for civil claims brought by a user for harm caused by another user. The court further concluded that immunity still applies even when there is actual knowledge of the alleged tortious or criminal conduct by third-party users. [3]

Circuit court ruling

Jane Doe appealed the district court ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2014, the circuit court initially reversed the district court ruling, holding that Section 230 did not in fact bar Doe's claim against Internet Brands. [1] The case was remanded to the district court to allow a trial against Internet Brands to proceed.

The circuit court determined that Doe's failure to warn claim against Internet Brands was within the scope of Section 230, which does not only apply to user-generated content. The court held that Section 230 allows "Good Samaritan" blocking and removal of troubling user-generated material by service providers without damaging their immunity against liability for that material. The court found that Internet Brands was responsible under this provision for warning users of possible danger from using the Model Mayhem site. [1]

Despite the presence of several precedents holding that online service providers are immune from legal liability for various type of user behavior, the circuit court held that under Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc. , [5] there has never been a ruling stating that Section 230 provides general immunity from all types of claims. [1]

After facing some criticism about how this ruling contradicted others on Section 230 immunity, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its September 2014 decision and agreed to rehear the case in 2015. [4] [6] In 2016 the court ruled in favor of Jane Doe again, noting in particular the "novel issue" that Section 230 did not expressly bar a failure to warn claim when the service is aware of previous criminal activity arising from usage of the website. [7] [8] Once again, the circuit court remanded the case to the district court for a new trial against Internet Brands. [9] [10]

Impact

Jeff Herman, the plaintiff's lawyer, was quoted as saying, "This is a landmark opinion and a major victory for victims of sexual abuse because for the first time ever websites can be held liable for failing to protect their users from a known danger. I think it has far-reaching implications for the Internet." [11]

There has been criticism of the Ninth Circuit decision. Santa Clara Law School professor Eric Goldman and lawyer Venkat Balasubramani stated that the decision appears contrary to the text of Section 230 and all other cases that previously dealt with liability among service providers, particularly Doe v. MySpace Inc . Goldman feared that this ruling implies that websites can face legal liability simply for allowing people to talk to each other. Balasubramani believed this will cause networks to self-censor and over-censor. [2]

Related Research Articles

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the United States Congress's first notable attempt to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In the 1997 landmark case Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck the act's anti-indecency provisions.

<i>Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc.</i>

Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, is an American legal case dealing with the protection provided an internet service provider under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) United States Code Title 47 section 230(c)(1). It is also known as the Star Trek actress case as the plaintiff, Chase Masterson – whose legal name is Christianne Carafano – is well known for having appeared on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The case demonstrated that the use of an online form with some multiple choice selections does not override the protections against liability for the actions of users or anonymous members of a Web-based service.

Online service provider law is a summary and case law tracking page for laws, legal decisions and issues relating to online service providers (OSPs), like the Wikipedia and Internet service providers, from the viewpoint of an OSP considering its liability and customer service issues. See Cyber law for broader coverage of the law of cyberspace.

<i>Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.</i> 1995 decision of the New York Supreme Court

Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 23 Media L. Rep. 1794, is a 1995 decision of the New York Supreme Court holding that online service providers can be liable for the speech of their users. The ruling caused controversy among early supporters of the Internet, including some lawmakers, leading to the passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in 1996.

<i>Zeran v. America Online, Inc.</i> 1997 United States court case

Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998), is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined the immunity of Internet service providers for wrongs committed by their users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA provides that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006), was a California Supreme Court case concerning online defamation. The case resolved a defamation claim brought by Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell against Ilena Rosenthal and several others. Barrett and others alleged that the defendants had republished libelous information about them on the internet. In a unanimous decision, the court held that Rosenthal was a "user of interactive computer services" and therefore immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 230</span> US federal law on website liability

Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

<i>Doe v. MySpace, Inc.</i>

Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413 (2008), is a 2008 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that MySpace was immune under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 from liability for a sexual assault of a minor that arose from posts on the MySpace platform.

<i>Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC</i>

Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102, is a U.S. court case between a publisher of an adult entertainment magazine and the webhosting, connectivity, and payment service companies. The plaintiff Perfect 10 asserted that defendants CCBill and CWIE violated copyright, trademark, and state law violation of right of publicity laws, unfair competition, false and misleading advertising by providing services to websites that posted images stolen from Perfect 10's magazine and website. Defendants sought to invoke statutory safe harbor exemptions from copyright infringement liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512, and from liability for state law unfair competition, false advertising claims and right of publicity based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).

Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County v. Craigslist, Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 961, is a decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in which the court held that Craigslist, as an Internet service provider, was immune from wrongs committed by their users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Sheriff Thomas Dart had sought to hold Craigslist responsible for allegedly illegal content posted by users in Craigslist's erotic services section, but Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA provides that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

<i>Goddard v. Google, Inc.</i>

Goddard v. Google, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1193, is a case in which Jenna Goddard ("Plaintiff") alleged that she and a class of similarly situated individuals were harmed by Google ("Defendant") as a result of clicking allegedly fraudulent web-based advertisements for mobile subscription services ("MSSPs"). The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that the action was barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA") and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.

In Milgram v. Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, the New Jersey Superior Court held that online ticket resellers qualified for immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), and that such immunity preempted a state law consumer fraud statute. The opinion clarified the court's test for determining whether a defendant is acting as a publisher, the applicability of the CDA to e-commerce sites, and the extent of control that an online intermediary may exercise over user content without becoming an "information content provider" under the CDA. The opinion was hailed by one observer as a "rare defeat for a consumer protection agency" and the "biggest defense win of the year" in CDA § 230 litigation.

<i>Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.</i>

Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which the Ninth Circuit held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) rules that Yahoo!, Inc., as an Internet service provider cannot be held responsible for failure to remove objectionable content posted to their website by a third party. Plaintiff Cecilia Barnes made claims arising out of Defendant Yahoo!, Inc.'s alleged failure to honor promises to remove offensive content about the plaintiff posted by a third party. The content consisted of a personal profile with nude photos of the Plaintiff and her contact information. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon had dismissed Barnes' complaint.

<i>Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC</i>

Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) did not apply to an interactive online operator whose questionnaire violated the Fair Housing Act. However, the court found that Roommates.com was immune under Section 230 of the CDA for the “additional comments” portion of the website. This case was the first to place a limit on the broad immunity that Section 230(c) gives to service providers that has been established under Zeran v. AOL (1997).

<i>OKroley v. Fastcase, Inc.</i>

O'Kroley v. Fastcase, Inc.,, aff'd, No. 15-6336, is a U.S. court case concerning defamation in online search results. The plaintiff, Colin O'Kroley, alleged that Google's automated snippet algorithm created a defamatory search result by falsely implying that the plaintiff had been accused of indecency with a child. The District Court granted Google's motion to dismiss the case, and found that Google had immunity from the defamation charges under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects interactive computer services from being held liable as a speaker or publisher for information provided by a third-party information content provider. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision.

Contributory copyright infringement is a way of imposing secondary liability for infringement of a copyright. It is a means by which a person may be held liable for copyright infringement even though he or she did not directly engage in the infringing activity. In the United States, the Copyright Act does not itself impose liability for contributory infringement expressly. It is one of the two forms of secondary liability apart from vicarious liability. Contributory infringement is understood to be a form of infringement in which a person is not directly violating a copyright but induces or authorises another person to directly infringe the copyright.

<i>Green v. America Online, Inc.</i>

Green v. America Online, Inc., 318 F.3d 465 (2003), was a case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, over the protections granted to Internet service providers from legal liability for tort offenses committed by their users.

Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 598 U.S. 617 (2023), was a case at the Supreme Court of the United States which dealt with the question of whether or not recommender systems are covered by liability exemptions under section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which was established by section 509 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, for Internet service providers (ISPs) in dealing with terrorism-related content posted by users and hosted on their servers. The case was granted certiorari alongside another Section 230 and terrorism-related case, Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh.

Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023), was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. The case considered whether Internet service providers are liable for "aiding and abetting" a designated foreign terrorist organization in an "act of international terrorism", on account of recommending such content posted by users, under Section 2333 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Along with Gonzalez v. Google LLC, Taamneh is one of two cases where social media companies are accused of aiding and abetting terrorism in violation of the law. The cases were decided together in a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that Taamneh's case could proceed. The cases challenge the broad liability immunity for hosting and recommending terrorist content that websites have enjoyed.

Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC was a 2020 United States federal court case concerning the legal immunity given to internet companies under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It was denied certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court of the United States made a statement respecting the denial of certiorari. He opined that section 230 had been interpreted too broadly, and could be narrowed or eliminated in a future case, which he urged his colleagues to hear.

Courts have…departed from the most natural reading of the text by giving Internet companies immunity for their own content ... Section 230(c)(1) protects a company from publisher liability only when content is 'provided by another information content provider.' Nowhere does this provision protect a company that is itself the information content provider.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc. 767 F.3d 894 (9th Cir., 2014).
  2. 1 2 3 Hill, Kashmir. "Modeling Website Didn't Warn Users Rapists Were Preying On Them". Forbes. Retrieved October 26, 2014.
  3. 1 2 "Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc., DBA Modelmayhem.com, No. CV-12-3626 JFK (PYX) (C.D. Cal April 26, 2012) Complaint" (PDF). ABC 17 News. Retrieved October 26, 2014.
  4. 1 2 Jane Doe no. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc. , no. 12-56638 (9th Cir. Feb 24, 2015)
  5. ↑ Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir., 2009).
  6. ↑ "Ninth Circuit Agrees to Revisit Ruling in Model Rape Case". The Recorder. February 24, 2015. Retrieved February 25, 2015.
  7. ↑ Rogers III, Robert L. (2015). "Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Holds that Communications Decency Act does Not Bar Actions against Website Operators for Failure to Warn". Communications Lawyer. 31 (1): 8–11.
  8. ↑ Johnson, Ashley; Castro, Daniel (February 22, 2021). "The Exceptions to Section 230: How Have the Courts Interpreted Section 230?". Information Innovation & Technology Foundation.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  9. ↑ Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc., No. 12-56638 (9th Cir., 2016).
  10. ↑ DiVito, Nick (September 17, 2014). "Model Mayhem Woman Has a Case After Rape". www.courthousenews.com. Retrieved September 11, 2022.
  11. ↑ Herman, Jeff (November 25, 2012). "Court Says Communications Decency Act Does Not Shield Website from Liability in Sexual Abuse Negligence Case – Jane Doe No. 14 v. Model Mayhem". Voice for Victims - Herman Law. Retrieved October 30, 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.