Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an underage user's lawsuit against Grindr, holding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act bars all state law tort claims because they necessarily implicate the app's role as a publisher of third-party content. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that Grindr knowingly participated in or benefited from sex trafficking under the TVPRA, meaning the FOSTA exception to Section 230 immunity did not apply. Consequently, all claims were dismissed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the state‑law claims are barred by §230 of the Communications Decency Act.
- Whether the plaintiff plausibly alleged a TVPRA claim sufficient to invoke the FOSTA exception to §230 immunity.
Holdings
- All of Doe’s state‑law claims (defective design, defective manufacturing, failure to warn, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation) are barred by §230 because each necessarily implicates Grindr’s role as a publisher of third‑party content.
- Doe failed to state a plausible claim under the TVPRA; consequently, the FOSTA carve‑out does not apply and the claim is barred by §230.
Key quotations
“Under § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”” (at 1)
“We hold that the district court properly dismissed each of Doe’s claims as barred by § 230.” (at 4)
Factual background
John Doe, a 15‑year‑old, created a Grindr account in 2019 by falsely representing he was over 18. The app matched him with four adult men, each of whom raped him. Doe sued Grindr alleging defective design, defective manufacturing, failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and a federal sex‑trafficking claim under the TVPRA.
Procedural history
The district court dismissed the plaintiff's six state‑law claims and the federal TVPRA claim with prejudice, holding each was barred by §230 of the Communications Decency Act. The plaintiff appealed.