Amid reports of Grindr being for sale because the U.S. considers its Chinese owners a security risk, the massively popular hook-up app also just won a U.S. court case that could’ve set a game-changing legal precedent for all websites and apps.
A federal appeals court said that New York resident Matthew Herrick couldn’t sue the app for negligence and emotional distress caused by his ex using Grindr to share Herrick’s pictures and address via a fake profile.
Herrick claimed that over 1,000 men contacted him via text or at his home or place of work demanding sex. The fake profiles showed semi-nude photos of Herrick and claimed that he wanted rough, unprotected sex, orgies and drugs.
Herrick said he had contacted Grindr about the fake profile over 50 times, but that the company failed to take any action beyond standard auto-replies.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
In 2017, Herrick sued Grindr for neglect, both for designing a “fundamentally unsafe [and] unreasonably dangerous” app that his ex could “weaponize” and for delaying its handling of the fake profile.
However, a three-judge U.S. federal appeals court ruled unanimously against Herrick. If the court had voted in his favor, it would’ve set a precedent of holding social media platforms and apps legally liable for when users spread false information through their networks.
While this might’ve forced websites and apps to create stricter policies against harassment and deliberate misuse, it also would’ve required apps to vigilantly monitor its users’ actions and to account for real-world consequences of users’ online behavior; even moreso than what’s already required by SESTA, the 2017 anti-sex trafficking bill holds companies liable for any user-uploaded content that “facilitates” sex trafficking or sex work.
Regarding the ruling, Herrick’s lawyer Tor Ekeland said, “What happened to Matthew is not an isolated incident. Apps are being used to stalk, rape and murder. Under the court’s reading of the [1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), which typically protects website and mobile apps from being legally liable for content posted by their users], big tech companies don’t have responsibility to do anything about it, even if they know it is happening. Congress needs to amend this statute.”
Ekeland said he may ask for a re-hearing of the case. Last June, a federal district judge threw out Herrick’s lawsuit, stating that the CDA protects Grindr and that Herrick should’ve sued his ex instead.
The National Network to End Domestic Violence and the Electronic Privacy Information Center wrote amicus briefs in support of Herrick’s case.
DCguy
Actually I have a problem with this decision if the article covers everything. I don’t think the social media platform should have to search for revenge profiles, but they should have a mechanism to respond if somebody contacts them.
If the guy contacted them over 50 times and they ignored it, at that point it would seem they are liable.
djmcgamester
Yeah, over 50 times is negligent on the part of Grindr. I’d say the issue should be less about the fake profile and more about the lack of response. For the fake profile he should have gone after the ex.
As for 1000 guys “demanding” sex, I find it unlikely. Maybe they were asking. After the first ten, it might have been worthwhile to get a new number. Annoying, to be sure, but 1000 messages are far worse.
PinkoOfTheGange
problem is there isn’t a law for the middle ground.
The only solution, right now, is for some one to start a competitor to Grinder that has that level of customer service, and most likely it would have to be a pay service.
Vince
I kind of like the idea of these losers being held accountable with consequences for creating fake profiles and screwing with people.
PinkoOfTheGange
Herrik has a judgement against the EX but the EX has made himself judgment proof by sponging off his relatives.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
I call bullthit on “over 1000 men”. However the site should be more vigilant in blocking the IP address of those who harass others ..
sfhally
This makes it sound like he didn’t try to go after the ex–that should have been his first move.
Brian
After the first 50 guys, wouldn’t you change your phone number? How on Earth did he let this get up to 1000 guys? That and a sign on his door saying that someone was impersonating him on the app would have taken care of the problem real quick.
PinkoOfTheGange
The ex would give the trick the address to Herrick’s apt and tell then not to take no for an answer.
Look him up; the story is just bizarre.
Jack Meoff
Yeah right because only gays look for sex on the internet and straights never have these issues with apps like Tinder etc. (eye roll)
There are more cases or straight people getting date raped or blackmailed through internet hookups than gays so crawl back under your rock with that attitude.