In general, websites aren't responsible for the things their users do or post. That's because of a landmark federal Internet law, known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The law allows sites like Yelp, Craigslist, and YouTube to host loads of user-produced content, while directing most lawsuits over that content toward the users, not the websites.

However, an appeals court ruling yesterday may join the small batch of precedents that set out the murky limits of CDA Section 230. A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has allowed (PDF) an alleged rape victim to sue ModelMayhem.com, a site she says was used by her attackers.

The woman, who is suing anonymously as Jane Doe, says that in 2011 she was living in Brooklyn when she was contacted through the site by two men, Emerson Callum and Lavont Flanders, posing as talent scouts. Callum and Flanders lured her to a fake audition in Florida. Once there, they allegedly drugged Doe and raped her. They also produced video of the rape and distributed it on the Internet, "guised as consensual hardcore pornography," according to Doe's complaint (PDF).

Doe's lawsuit says that Callum and Flanders were using Model Mayhem as early as 2006. In 2007, they were arrested and charged with "luring and victimizing" at least five women they had met through the website.

Florida authorities ultimately accused the two men of luring more than 30 women to a warehouse outside Miami, where they drugged them before having sex with them, according to the Miami New Times, which also notes that Flanders was a former Miami Beach police officer. The two men defended themselves, saying the women knew they were signing up for pornographic filming and had signed releases. In 2011, the initial case was dropped, and the men were re-arrested by the FBI on new charges.

The horrific crimes were widely covered by Florida media. In 2012, Callum and Flanders were sentenced to 12 consecutive life terms on sex-trafficking charges.

For website, no “get-out-of-jail-free” card

Doe sued Internet Brands in a Los Angeles federal court, but the judge threw out the case in 2012, finding that the company was protected by CDA Section 230. Yesterday's appeal ruling (PDF) overturns that decision and returns the lawsuit to the lower court with orders to allow Doe to move forward with her lawsuit.

In the opinion (PDF), the judges note that Doe isn't trying to find Internet Brands liable because it's a "publisher or speaker." She doesn't complain that they failed to remove a posting. Rather, she says they're liable "for failing to warn her about how third parties targeted and lured victims through Model Mayhem."

"Congress has not provided an all purpose get-out-of-jail-free card for businesses that publish user content on the Internet," wrote Circuit Judge Richard Clifton for a unanimous panel.

The question for the website's owner, Doe's attorney Jeffrey Herman told The Recorder, is "What did they know and when did they know it?"

Model Mayhem was purchased by Internet Brands in 2008, and shortly thereafter the company learned about the charges against Flanders and Callum. They weren't happy about it. In 2010, Internet Brands sued the former owners, Donald and Taylor Waitt, saying they had "failed to inform Internet Brands of the potential for civil suits... arising from the actions of Lavont Flanders."

That means Internet Brands was on notice that it "was being used as a means of luring unsuspecting female... users, like Jane Done, to drug and rape them," states Doe in her complaint. The site was "an essential element of the scheme" and should be found liable as negligent. Doe "has suffered and will continue to suffer severe physical and psychological damages, mental anguish and pain, and loss of enjoyment of life."

Yesterday's 9th Circuit decision drew "a line in the sand in terms of the CDA," Herman told The Recorder. "This case is not about content, it's about failing to protect users from a known danger."

"This is a landmark decision and a victory for victims of sexual abuse," he added, speaking to the Daily Breeze, a newspaper in Torrance, California.

Eric Goldman, a law professor and blogger who frequently writes about CDA 230 cases, sees it differently. The Doe v. Internet Brands decision is an outlier and "stretches to find that the website's immunity isn't applicable," he told The Recorder.