Dismissal Reversed In Case Where Website Owners Did Not Warn User Of Rapists.

Plaintiff is an aspiring model who posted information about herself on a networking website for models. In her action against the website owners, she alleges that two rapists used the website to lure her to a fake audition, where they drugged her, raped her, and recorded her for a pornographic video. She also alleges that the owners of the website knew about the rapists but did not warn her. The federal district court dismissed the action on the ground that her claim was barred by the Communications Decency Act [47 U.S.C. § 230(c); CDA]. The Ninth Circuit reversed after noting that California law imposes a duty to warn a potential victim of third party harm when there is a “special relationship,” and that barring this claim would stretch the CDA beyond its narrow language and purpose. (Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc., dba Modelmayhem.com (Ninth Cir.; September 17, 2014) 767 F.3d 894.)