Doe v. Grindr Inc.
Not yet reported (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Interactive computer service providers are immune under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from state law claims that seek to treat them as publishers of third-party content. This immunity does not apply to federal sex trafficking claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) only if the plaintiff plausibly alleges the provider's own conduct constitutes knowing participation in or knowing benefit from sex trafficking.
Facts:
- Grindr Inc. and Grindr LLC owned and operated the Grindr application, a dating app for gay and bisexual men that matches users based on proximity and allows direct messaging.
- The Grindr app required users to be over 18 but did not verify users' ages, and Grindr marketed the app on social media platforms popular with minors.
- In the spring of 2019, John Doe, a 15-year-old residing in Canada, downloaded and signed up for the Grindr app, representing that he was over 18 years old.
- From April 4 through April 7, 2019, the Grindr app matched John Doe with four adult men.
- John Doe alleged that each of these four adult men raped him on consecutive days.
- Three of the adult men later received criminal sentences for their crimes against John Doe, while the fourth remains at large.
Procedural Posture:
- John Doe filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Grindr Inc. and Grindr LLC in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
- The FAC alleged six causes of action: defective design, defective manufacturing, defective warning, negligence, negligent misrepresentation under state law, and a violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) under federal law.
- Grindr moved to dismiss the FAC.
- The district court dismissed the FAC with prejudice, ruling that all of Doe's state law claims were barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and that Doe failed to state a plausible TVPRA claim.
- John Doe, as Plaintiff-Appellant, timely appealed the district court’s dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Grindr Inc. and Grindr LLC as Defendants-Appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunize an interactive computer service provider from state law claims for defective design, manufacturing, negligence, failure to warn, and negligent misrepresentation, as well as a federal sex trafficking claim under the TVPRA, when the alleged liability stems from third-party content or the provider's general operation rather than its knowing, active participation in sex trafficking?
Opinions:
Majority - Ikuta
Yes, Section 230 immunizes Grindr from Doe's state law claims because they necessarily implicate Grindr's role as a publisher of third-party content, and no, Doe did not plausibly allege a TVPRA claim to invoke the FOSTA exception. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims. Doe's state law claims for defective design, manufacturing, and negligence faulted Grindr for facilitating communication among users for illegal activity, including the exchange of child sexual abuse material, and for failing to prevent matches and communications between adults and minors. The court reasoned that discharging this alleged duty would require Grindr to monitor third-party content, which falls under its protected role as a publisher, citing Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Group. The app's features, such as proximity matching, were deemed neutral and intended to facilitate user communication, not content in themselves, distinguishing the case from Lemmon v. Snap, Inc. where the defect was independent of content moderation. For the failure-to-warn claim, Doe did not allege Grindr had independent knowledge of a specific conspiracy but rather sought to impose a duty to warn about a general possibility of harm, which is insufficient to overcome § 230 immunity, as established in Est. of Bride ex rel. Bride v. YOLO Techs., Inc. and Internet Brands. Grindr's general statement about creating a 'safe and secure environment' was considered a description of its moderation policy, protected by § 230, not a specific, enforceable promise like those found unprotected in Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc. or Estate of Bride. Regarding the federal TVPRA claim, the court held that to invoke the FOSTA exception to § 230 immunity, Doe needed to plausibly allege Grindr's own conduct constituted knowing perpetration of or knowing benefit from sex trafficking under 18 U.S.C. § 1591. The court found Doe's allegations, such as Grindr 'knowingly introducing children to adults' or generally advertising the app, were not supported by plausible facts showing Grindr's active participation or a causal relationship between affirmative conduct and receipt of benefits from sex trafficking. 'Mere association' or 'turning a blind eye' to potential trafficking was deemed insufficient to establish liability, as per Does v. Reddit, Inc..
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the broad protection afforded to interactive computer service providers under Section 230, even when their platforms are exploited for serious harm. It clarifies that claims framed around product design or general negligence, if they fundamentally demand content moderation or monitoring of third-party communications, will likely be barred. Furthermore, the decision sets a stringent standard for the FOSTA exception to § 230 immunity for TVPRA claims, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate an online platform's active, knowing participation in or direct benefit from specific sex trafficking ventures, rather than mere facilitation or a 'blind eye' approach. This ruling will likely limit the avenues for victims to seek recourse against platforms for harms facilitated by user-generated content, pushing litigation towards perpetrators directly involved in the illegal activity rather than the platform itself.
