Team paper

Team paper

Case: Jane Doe, an unknown plaintiff, filed suit against Internet Brands Inc. for failing to warn

of the activities of rapist, Lavont Flanders and Emerson Callum. Internet Brands Inc. owns a website

called Model Mayhem which is a networking website ( for individuals in the

modeling industry. It allows professionals and aspiring models to market themselves. Flanders

and Callum used the website to lure Jane Doe to an "audition", where they drugged and raped


Issue: Whether Internet Brands Inc., knew of the rapists and didn’t warn its users.

Rule: Jane Doe is filing suit against Internet Brands Inc. under liability for negligence California law

failure to warn

Analysis: Plaintiff Jane Doe filed suit on Internet Brands Inc. owner of the Model Mayhem website on the basis that the company was liable for negligence under the pretense that the company failed to warn potential victims, including herself, that there were two rapists using the Model Mayhem website to lure potential victims for drug and sexual abuse for pornography. Jane Doe also stated that Internet Brands was aware of these rapists. Internet Brands Inc. purchased the website from Taylor and Donald Watts in 2008, and had sued the previous owners for failure to disclose the potential for civil suits that have surfaced from the two rapists, Flanders and Callum. Jane Doe was contacted by Flanders in 2011 which led to the victim believing that Internet Brands Inc. were aware. Internet Brands Inc. counter claimed under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) that Jane Does claim was barred under the Communications Decency Act of 1996. (CDA)
Conclusion: Jane Doe does not have viable grounds for her complaint, and the CDA may not be a
strong means to counter suit and does not bar the failure to warrant claim. The case has been reversed and on hold for further proceedings.

How the legal concepts from this case can be...

Similar Essays