Horrifying 'Rape Scam' Case Leads To Questionable Ruling About Blaming A Website For Failing To Warn Of Rapists
from the cda-230 dept
For many years, we've written about the importance of the so-called "intermediary liability protections" found in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The basic concept of Section 230 is that it's improper to blame a website for the actions done by users of that website -- noting that to blame the website would create tremendous chilling effects on the internet. However, at times, the courts have chipped away at these protections. Back in 2009, we wrote about a ruling in California in Barnes v. Yahoo in which the court ruled that Yahoo had given up its Section 230 protections after an employee promised to take down some content (the case was sort of an early revenge porn story).Now, the 9th circuit appeals court is relying on that ruling to reject a Section 230 defense in another case, where the situation is -- without question -- horrible. It involves a site called Model Mayhem, where models and aspiring models can post their modeling profiles. Apparently, a pair of despicable excuses for human beings (and I almost hesitate to call them that much) named Lavont Flanders (who was a former Miami Beach police officer who was apparently fired, but not prosecuted, for soliciting the 13-year old daughter of a fellow cop) and Emerson Callum would troll through a site called Model Mayhem to find aspiring models, convince them to come for an "audition," and then proceed to drug them, rape them, film it and then sell the videos. Everything about this is horrific. I was going to say that I hope the two of them are on their way to rotting in prison for the rest of their lives, but it appears that's already been taken care of. Both have been given life sentences for what they did. The story behind that link has the following tidbit that becomes more important: "State prosecutors initially charged the men in Broward County, but they were freed on bond and continued to prey on women while they were free, prosecutors said."
The case here involves one of the victims of this situation suing Internet Brands, the company that owned Model Mayhem for at least some of the time that this was happening. Again, what she went through is absolutely horrible. But it seems like a massive stretch to blame the site. Internet Brands pointed to Section 230, and the district court dismissed the case against the company. However, the appeals court has now reversed, arguing that Section 230 only applies to certain kinds of intermediary liability -- those which involve treating the intermediary as a "publisher." All other intermediary liability is, apparently, fair game. From there, the issue is whether or not Model Mayhem / Internet Brands had a proactive duty, under California law, to warn users of the site of this particular scam by these individuals. The court notes that the company was aware of what these two guys were doing, but they weren't publishing anything on the site -- merely contacting women who published their own profiles. The site was likely aware of the pair due to that earlier arrest but nowhere does it suggest they knew the two were still out there continuing to take part in this horrific practice.
Either way, the woman claims that Internet Brands should have warned their users, and the court says Section 230 doesn't protect the site from such things (though does not determine whether or not Model Mayhem should have warned users of the site -- that question goes back to the lower court).
In any case, that Internet Brands was in some sense an “intermediary” between Jane Doe and the rapists does not mean that the failure to warn claim treats Internet Brands as the publisher or speaker of user content. True, imposing any tort liability on Internet Brands for its role as an interactive computer service could be said to have a “chilling effect” on the internet, if only because such liability would make operating an internet business marginally more expensive. But such a broad policy argument does not persuade us that the CDA should bar the failure to warn claim. We have already held that the CDA does not declare “a general immunity from liability deriving from third-party content.” Barnes, 570 F.3d at 1100. Congress has not provided an all purpose get-out-of-jail-free card for businesses that publish user content on the internet, though any claims might have a marginal chilling effect on internet publishing businesses. Moreover, the argument that our holding will have a chilling effect presupposes that Jane Doe has alleged a viable failure to warn claim under California law. That question is not before us and remains to be answered.The woman suing suffered a very real and incredibly horrifying harm. But it's worrisome when the result of it is to chip away at important protections that Congress put in place for intermediaries to protect them from liability from the actions of third parties. The constant efforts to chip away or dismantle Section 230 are already problematic enough. Having a court open up new "holes" in Section 230 like this will only lead to a new series of lawsuits from questionable claimants, seeking to get around Section 230 relying on rulings like this one.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cda 230, emerson callum, intermediary liability, lavont flanders, liability, rape, scam
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So perhaps section 230 doesn't apply because it's not about what was published, but what the site may have facilitated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: in the position to turn that access off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually if you read the ruling, they state exactly the opposite is true, so, nope:
It has similar statements throughout the ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As a programmer, we deal with this all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In order to contact models on that site, you need to be a member. You cannot just cruise the site and contact people. The business model is based on paid memberships for those who seek to hire people.
So what you are saying is that they were able to create fake paid member accounts on MM and use those to take their bad actions? Did MM not verify "producer / agent" accounts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The article states: "Flanders repeatedly posed as a female model online..."
Model Mayhem's own join page states, "It is FREE to join but only available to individuals..."
You have to pay and submit more identifying information if you claim to be an agent and want to use the site for the official purpose of soliciting models. They didn't do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It says in the doc above that those two assholes didn't make a profile of their own, but "browsed profiles of models". I can't seem to find where it says that they were members, but if they were, and MM did nothing to block them, they get what they deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not about CDA , but what they knew.
IB is hurt here by judicial estoppel, as it claims it was harmed by the failure to warn and now it is being sued for failure to warn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not about CDA , but what they knew.
The relationship between IB, the sellers, and the victims are all different, which means they have different duties. They also aren't really conflicting positions.
Judicial estoppel probably won't apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stupid
this is like email scams...stupid people STILLLLLL open them and do stuff then complain they got ripped off...
it may come to a need to license these people from doing anything in life cause they are near and im going ot use the unpolitically correct word
RETARDED...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stupid
that they should be kicking *themselves* for being so stupid, instead of suing *someone*/*anyone* to 'pay' for their horrific experience, is another thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ummm... oh crap.... *walks away slowly*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That may be true in regards to this law, depending on how the section is worded. But it sounds like there is no direct vetting or endorsement of site users and, as such, making the site liable would still require the site owner to be nigh omniscient with respect to the users’ actions.
In the absence of any law that actually does make the site liable, I can’t see any reasonable jury actually ruling that the site should be held liable in the general case. Even in the specific case where the site owners have knowledge, it should only really hold if the site can be shown to have a duty to post such a warning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems to me it is the Miami Beach Force that needs to be sued or did they warn the internet of that predator?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>Turned out to be a cop's daughter
>He gets fired
>Not jailed or sued or anything
>Just fired
>He teams up with another guy, they start raping models
>They get arrested
>Get out on bail
>Start raping models again
>FINALLY get life sentences
>Who gets blamed for all this?
>The website they found the models on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So why would MM even need that protection? It has no fault in this all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd feel better if the appeals court found that section 230 was not applicable and furthermore the case was dismissed with prejudice, as the site was not involved in the offense, and further to that, the company being sued were not the owners of the site during the period in question -- at least sue the correct LLC (not the product, not the people).
However, the fact that the appeals court did not dismiss with prejudice makes me worried about how they are actually reading this case.
But then, maybe they're trying to go by the book and set up some solid precedence (that is, in cases where s230 doesn't hold true, you'd better be able to tie the company's actions to the incident directly, or your case never even hits the docket). One can only hope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Was there a reasonable, foreseeable and direct (neighbour) duty to inform the members who might be at some future date victims when as far as MM was concerned the case was already being handled by the appropriate authorities.
The answer to duty is a resounding NO!
Whereas the granting of bail to the two perpetrators was the real fault here since based on prior history and allegations there was a pattern of similar offenses. The courts have the vicarious duty then and have negligently (if you remove the immunity) failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marginally more expensive? How about significantly more expensive? All it takes is one expensive case or large judgment to bankrupt or seriously cripple some companies. The mere threat of it is enough to chill speech.
Can you imagine if Craigslist had to notify users whenever they learned of a particular scamming attempt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The court got it wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A new definition of chilling effect?
Actually it not more expensive at all, at least in the implied monetary terms. In fact it's quite cheap to not allow public participation, or not even start a website, out of the fear of undeserved liability.
Whoever wrote that clearly has no idea what the term chilling effect actually means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]