She alleged that the owner of the site Internet Brands knew of the criminal activity, and failed to warn her or other users of the site. She alleged that in February 2011, two men used the site to lure her to a fake audition, drug her with a benzodiazepine, rape her, and record the acts for a pornographic video. Plaintiff Jane Doe posted information about herself on the website. The resolution of this case is expected to have large implications for precedent on the liability of websites arising from user activity.
![modelmayhem app modelmayhem app](https://photos.modelmayhem.com/potd/entrants/211120/potd-211120-748941-small.jpg)
In May 2016, the panel again held that Doe's case could proceed. In February 2015, however, the court withdrew the 2014 opinion, and set the case for reargument in March 2015. In 2014, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, instead ruling that the claim was not barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled that Internet Brands was not liable for informing users, such as Doe, of potential dangers as they were protected under the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), a landmark law, protecting web hosts from suit over libelous material that they carried but did not write. In 2012, Doe filed an action against Internet Brands alleging liability for negligence under California law based on that failure to warn. Another user lured her into a fake audition and then drugged and raped her, recording it for a pornographic video. Jane Doe was a member of, a networking website owned by Internet Brands. Clifton of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversing the district court's dismissal of diversity action alleging negligence under California law. 17, 2014), was a judicial opinion written by Judge Richard R.
![modelmayhem app modelmayhem app](https://photos.modelmayhem.com/education_upload/120803/09/501bf9935d968.jpg)
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitĪppeal from C.D.