match.com
Mary Beckman v. match.com
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Mary Elay Beckman appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice her complaint against Match.com (“Match”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm and reverse in part.
We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and we review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a party’s request for leave to amend. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011); Kahle v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 697, 699 (9th Cir. 2007).
1. The district court properly concluded that the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230 , barred Beck-man’s claims for negligent misrepresentation, violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (unfair trade practices), and putative negligence per se. The CDA provides that no “interactive computer service [provider] shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by” a third-party. Id. § 230(c)(1); see also Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2009); Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Further, “no [civil] liability may be imposed under…