The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will not consider whether the LGBTQ dating app Grindr could be held liable for matching a teenager with adult men who sexually assaulted him.
It means the justices won’t wade into a new fight over Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives tech firms broad immunity from legal challenges over user-generated content.
John Doe, the anonymous petitioner, wrote in his appeal to the justices that he was 15 years old when he signed up for Grindr, representing he was an adult.
Over four days in April 2019, the app matched him with four adult men, who each raped him on consecutive days, he alleges. Three of the men were later given prison sentences for sex crimes against Doe, while the fourth remains at large.
Doe’s lawyer, Carrie Goldberg, argued in the petition that his case presents “viable allegations of platform misconducts” that “undeniably” caused him harm, suggesting that the “hookup” app was marketed to children, knowingly profited off their membership and recommended kids to nearby adults for offline sex.
Lower courts dismissed the lawsuit under Section 230. But Goldberg argued that Doe’s theories of liabilities “stem only from the sex hookup platform’s own acts and omissions, none of which involve publishing functions.”
“This is the perfect case for the Court to finally bring order to the law by crafting a cohesive interpretation of Section 230,” the petition reads.
Section 230’s critics have long said it handed technology companies unchecked power, pointing to the challenges of prosecuting alleged harms stemming from social media.
Grindr initially waived its right to respond but was asked to weigh in by the justices.
The company described Doe as a teenager who “misrepresented his age to gain access to an adults-only dating app” and is now seeking to hold the app liable for his “encounters with criminals.”
“The petition presents no circuit split, no urgent need for clarification, and no vehicle capable of generating useful guidance,” Grindr’s lawyers wrote in their brief responding to Doe’s petition.
“Petitioner’s tragic experience reflects the criminal conduct of his attackers, not any disharmony in federal law warranting this Court’s intervention.
Last week, the justices turned away another Section 230 challenge that asked the high court to consider whether Meta should be held liable for contributing to the radicalization of Dylann Roof, the self-proclaimed white nationalist mass shooter.
