The Internet Law Resource Center™ is the complete information solution for practitioners in cyberlaw. Follow the latest developments on ICANN’s gTLD program, keyword advertising, online privacy,...
May 31 — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit May 31 retained its position that an operator of a modeling website couldn't assert federal online publisher immunity against a claim that it failed to warn users of the risks associated with its site ( Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc. , 9th Cir., No. 12-56638, superseding opinion filed 5/31/16 ).
The Ninth Circuit had decided to withdraw and rehear a prior opinion that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. §230, didn't bar an aspiring model's claim against website operator Internet Brands Inc. for negligent failure to warn users about the risk of being victimized by individuals using the site to perpetuate a rape scheme (20 ECLR 316, 3/4/15).
Internet companies and service providers had urged the court to set that ruling aside. They argued that it could impose undesirable liability on Internet service providers and threaten the growth and innovation of the Internet industry. But the court didn't change its mind.
The May 31 opinion is substantially similar to the court's prior opinion. The court added comments that the plaintiff didn't allege Internet Brands learned of the criminal activity through content monitoring, but rather through an outside source.
The addition of these comments suggests that the ruling might not apply to cases in which the website operator learned of the harmful activity on its own, Robert L. Rogers, senior counsel with the Holland & Knight LLP's Media Practice team in Orlando, Fla., told Bloomberg BNA May 31. “We may see a lot of debate by future plaintiffs and defending Internet companies as they test the limits of the opinion,” he said.
The court remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits of the model's failure to warn claim.
Section 230 of the CDA protects online publishers against liability for content produced by others, as long as they are performing traditional publisher functions and aren't content providers themselves.
Plaintiff Jane Doe alleged that two individuals used Internet Brands' site, Model Mayhem, to pose as talent scouts and lure users to Florida for fake modeling auditions. Doe, a victim of the rape scheme, alleged that Internet Brands knew about the scheme but negligently failed to warn its users.
The Ninth Circuit looked to Barnes v. Yahoo! Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009), in which the appeals court held that Section 230 barred a negligence claim against Yahoo! Inc. for failing to remove offensive profiles posted by a plaintiff's ex-boyfriend (14 ECLR 652, 5/13/09). The claim was based on Yahoo's traditional editorial functions to screen and remove content, the Barnes court said.
The court distinguished Barnes from the instant case. It said the duty to warn didn't require Internet Brands to take any action involving the editing or removal of user content. Internet Brands could have satisfied the alleged duty to warn by posting its own notice on the website, which falls outside of the scope of Section 230, the Ninth Circuit said.
The court added that imposing tort liability on site operators such as Internet Brands could make operating an Internet business “marginally more expensive,” but that Section 230 doesn't provide blanket immunity against claims that might have a marginal chilling effect on the Internet.
The CDA can't mean that businesses have blanket immunity from tort liability by virtue of their status as Internet publishers, the court said.
Herman Law represented Doe. Munger Tolles & Olson LLP represented Internet Brands.
To contact the reporter on this story: Alexis Kramer in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Joseph Wright at firstname.lastname@example.org
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)