## Facts

- MySpace operated a social-networking website where users created profiles and communicated with other users.
- Registration was purportedly limited to users age 14 or older, but underage users could register by entering false birth dates.
- Several minor plaintiffs (ages 13–15) created profiles, met adult men through the site, and were later sexually assaulted by those men offline.
- Plaintiffs alleged MySpace knew the site facilitated predatory contact with minors and failed to implement reasonable protective measures (e.g., effective age verification, safer default privacy settings, and restrictions on adult contact with minors).
- Plaintiffs asserted state-law claims including negligence, gross negligence, and strict products liability, alleging MySpace had a duty to protect minors from foreseeable harm by third parties.
- MySpace demurred, asserting immunity under § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 230; the trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend and dismissed.
- Plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether § 230 of the CDA bars state-law negligence and strict liability claims against a social-networking service arising from offline sexual assaults committed by adults who met minors through the service.
2. Whether claims framed as failure to implement safety, privacy, or age-verification measures improperly treat the service as a publisher or speaker of information provided by third-party users.
3. Whether dismissal without leave to amend was proper where § 230 immunity applies as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissals.
- The court held MySpace was a provider of an “interactive computer service” and the relevant information and communications were provided by “another information content provider” (users).
- The court concluded plaintiffs’ theories, though styled as defective safety measures, sought to impose liability for decisions about screening, organizing, and restricting user communications—conduct treated as publisher activity under § 230(c)(1).
- Because § 230 barred the claims, further amendment was futile and sustaining the demurrers without leave to amend was proper.

## Legal Principles

- Under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), an interactive computer service may not be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider.
- § 230 immunity applies when (1) the defendant is a provider or user of an interactive computer service, (2) the claims treat the defendant as a publisher or speaker, and (3) the challenged information is provided by third parties.
- Claims that seek to impose liability for a platform’s failure to implement age verification, privacy defaults, or other measures that regulate user interactions may be barred when they functionally challenge how the service monitors, screens, or restricts third-party communications.
- Where § 230 forecloses liability on the pleaded theories as a matter of law, dismissal without leave to amend is proper.

## Conclusion

The court held that § 230(c)(1) immunized MySpace from state-law negligence and products-liability claims premised on third-party user communications and resulting offline assaults, and it affirmed dismissal without leave to amend because the asserted duties would treat MySpace as a publisher of third-party content.


Julie Doe II v. MySpace, Inc., 175 Cal. App. 4th 561 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)