The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that Grindr, the dating app for gay men, cannot be held liable in a lawsuit brought by a 15-year-old victim of sexual assault.
The case, Doe v. Grindr, raised critical questions about the limits of internet platform liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a legal shield that has been the subject of growing scrutiny.
The lawsuit stemmed from a tragic series of events in which a closeted teenager in Nova Scotia downloaded Grindr in an attempt to connect with other gay youth. Instead, he was sexually assaulted by four adult men over the course of four days. Three of the perpetrators were convicted of sex crimes, while the fourth remains at large.
In his civil suit, the plaintiff alleged that Grindr knowingly allowed minors onto its platform and even marketed to them on social media.
Citing a 2018 study in the Journal of Adolescent Health, which found that nearly half of gay teens had used Grindr while underage, his attorneys argued that the platform operated as a “trafficking venture.”
Despite these claims, the district court dismissed the case in 2023, ruling that Grindr was immune under Section 230, the federal law that shields online platforms from liability for third-party content. This week, the 9th Circuit upheld that decision.
Legal Analysis and Section 230 Precedent
Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Sandra Ikuta concluded that Grindr could not be held responsible for the crimes committed by third parties on its platform.
The ruling aligns with past 9th Circuit decisions affirming broad protections for internet companies under Section 230, which was enacted in 1996 to foster free speech online.
Critics of the decision argue that the court missed an opportunity to recognize the evolving dangers posed by digital platforms. Carrie Goldberg, the plaintiff’s attorney, expressed frustration, stating:
“This would have been a moment for the 9th Circuit to recognize that a product that recommends children to adults is defective.”
She indicated that the case could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The ruling also highlights the judiciary’s inconsistent treatment of Section 230 defenses. In past cases, the 9th Circuit has allowed claims against tech companies for allegedly dangerous product design—such as a lawsuit against Snap Inc. over an in-app filter that encouraged reckless driving. Some legal experts believe that a larger “en banc” panel or the Supreme Court could revisit this precedent.
Debate Over Online Liability and Platform Design
The Doe v. Grindr case reflects a broader legal battle over platform accountability. While Section 230 has historically protected internet companies, recent lawsuits have sought to challenge these protections by focusing on platform design flaws rather than third-party content.
Legal experts are divided on whether the 9th Circuit’s decision aligns with its prior rulings. Some argue that the court has upheld tech companies’ immunity too broadly, while others believe the ruling is consistent with longstanding interpretations of Section 230.
The controversy over internet liability is unlikely to subside. Ongoing litigation against major social media companies, including Meta, Snap, ByteDance, and Google, could set new legal precedents. Some experts predict that the Supreme Court will eventually be forced to clarify the scope of Section 230.
Future Implications
With growing bipartisan criticism of Section 230, legislative reform remains a possibility. However, previous efforts to amend the law have faced resistance, particularly from civil liberties groups concerned about restricting online speech.
As courts continue to grapple with the evolving digital landscape, the Doe v. Grindr decision underscores the legal challenges in holding tech platforms accountable for real-world harms. Whether the Supreme Court will intervene remains an open question.
Read the full ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in pdf here.
