In 2012, Doe filed a lawsuit against Internet Brands alleging negligence under California law, based on failure to warn her of the risks of using the Model Mayhem service.

[4] Citing Doe v. MySpace, Inc., Judge John F. Walter concluded that based on "well-settled authority", Internet Brands did not have a duty to warn its users of harm.

[1] Despite the presence of several precedents holding that online service providers are immune from legal liability for various type of user behavior, the circuit court held that under Barnes v.

[4][6] In 2016 the court ruled in favor of Jane Doe again, noting in particular the "novel issue" that Section 230 did not expressly bar a failure to warn claim when the service is aware of previous criminal activity arising from usage of the website.

[9][10] At that proceeding, Internet Brands was able to have the case dismissed, as Doe failed to argue that the company committed negligence under California law, and once again due to the protections of Section 230.

[11] Jeff Herman, the plaintiff's lawyer, was quoted as saying, "This is a landmark opinion and a major victory for victims of sexual abuse because for the first time ever websites can be held liable for failing to protect their users from a known danger.