By Stephanie Wolak, Staff Writer
Photo provided courtesy of Pixabay.com
In 1996, Congress enacted the Validity, Construction, and Application of Immunity Provisions of Communications Decency Act, including Section 230, the “Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material.” [1] Section 230 states that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the speaker or publisher of any information provided by another content provider, nor can the provider or user be held civilly liable on the account of actions of another user. [2] Today we would understand this as social media platforms, like Facebook and Snapchat, where the site’s users interact with their “friends,” cannot be held liable for what their users “post” to the users’ accounts.
Congress found Section 230 necessary to encourage free development of computer services in the United States, and in order to prevent interactive internet sites from using extreme blocking and filtering technologies out to a fear of being sued by offended users. [3] However, in recent years, many interactive computer service providers have come under fire for not policing their users efficiently enough; Facebook and foreign fake accounts concerning the 2016 presidential election to Gab, the extremist-friendly website, where synagogue-shooter Bowers posted about his intended actions. [4]
Social media sites and apps have been consistently held to be protected by Section 230, including most recently Grindr LLC. [5] Grindr is a popular, male-dominate, LGBTQ dating app matching users with their location-based profiles. [6]
Matthew Herrick met his boyfriend on the app back in 2015 and soon deleted the app from his phone, but the couple broke things off in 2016. [7] That’s when the abuse started by his ex-boyfriend, only referred to as “J.C.” in court documents. [8] Between October 2016 and March 2017, over 1,000 men came to Herrick’s home and workplace, believing they were meeting Herrick for violent or outlandish sex. [9] At the peak, 16 men were coming to his door every day, some believing Herrick had “rape-fantasies” so if Herrick was resisting their advances it was merely “part of the act.” [10] Only Herrick had no idea who these men were, never less invited them to his home. [11] The men swore they matched with Herrick and had been conversing with him on various dating apps. [12]
J.C., Herrick’s ex, had created fake profiles using photos from Herrick’s Instagram account, and impersonated Herrick under usernames like “Gang Bang Now!” and falsely claiming Herrick was HIV-positive and interested in unprotected sex and bondage. [13] Herrick filed for protective orders and police reports against J.C., but that did little to prevent J.C. from remotely sending the strange men to his home and work. [14] Herrick sent over 100 complaints to Grindr LLC reporting the fake profiles, requesting to have them removed from the app; and recruited friends, family and eventually his attorney to do the same. Grindr took no action. [15]
Scruff and Jack’d, two other dating apps where J.C. had created false profiles of Herrick, responded to Herrick’s complaints and timely deactivated the false profiles and banned J.C. from using the platforms. [16] Whereas Grindr failed to respond until Herrick’s attorney took the company to court. [17] Grindr argued that under federal law, Section 230, it did not have to remove the false profiles created by J.C. and held liability for J.C.’s actions. [18] In January 2019, a New York Federal Judge ruled in favor of Grindr, under Section 230’s protections. Herrick has consistently appealed the decisions, even after the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of his claims under Section 230. [19]
On August 7th, Herrick petitioned his case to be heard by the Supreme Court. [20] The petition criticized the “almost absolute immunity” given to internet companies from claims of abuse by users under Section 230. [21] “As this case demonstrates, in 2019 this is a matter of life and death for victims of stalking targeted by computer technologies with functionalities unimaginable when Congress passed CDA § 230(c)(1) in 1996,” Herrick has said. [22] It is clear that abusers, like J.C. in Herrick’s case, have started to widely use social media platforms to continue their abuse through “revenge porn” and stalking. [23] We will see if the Supreme Court believes it is time to draw a line on in the sand on if, or how much, liability internet platforms should have.
[1] 47 U.S.C.A. § 230.
[2] 47 U.S.C.A. § 230.
[3] Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed, Carrie Goldberg, https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed
[4] Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed, Carrie Goldberg, https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed
[5] Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed, Carrie Goldberg, https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed
[6] About, Grindr https://www.grindr.com/about/
[7] Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed, Carrie Goldberg, https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed
[8] A Man Sent 1,000 Men Expecting Sex and Drugs to His Ex-Boyfriend Using Grindr, A Lawsuit Says, Tyler Kingkade, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tylerkingkade/grindr-herrick-lawsuit-230-online-stalking
[9] Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed, Carrie Goldberg, https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed
[10] Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed, Carrie Goldberg, https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed
[11] Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed, Carrie Goldberg, https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed
[12] A Man Sent 1,000 Men Expecting Sex and Drugs to His Ex-Boyfriend Using Grindr, A Lawsuit Says, Tyler Kingkade, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tylerkingkade/grindr-herrick-lawsuit-230-online-stalking
[13] A Man Sent 1,000 Men Expecting Sex and Drugs to His Ex-Boyfriend Using Grindr, A Lawsuit Says, Tyler Kingkade, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tylerkingkade/grindr-herrick-lawsuit-230-online-stalking
[14] A Man Sent 1,000 Men Expecting Sex and Drugs to His Ex-Boyfriend Using Grindr, A Lawsuit Says, Tyler Kingkade, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tylerkingkade/grindr-herrick-lawsuit-230-online-stalking
[15] Matthew Herrick v Grindr LLC, Carrie Goldberg, https://www.cagoldberglaw.com/matthew-herrick-v-grindr-llc/
[16] Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed, Carrie Goldberg, https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed
[17] A Man Sent 1,000 Men Expecting Sex and Drugs to His Ex-Boyfriend Using Grindr, A Lawsuit Says, Tyler Kingkade, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tylerkingkade/grindr-herrick-lawsuit-230-online-stalking
[18] A Man Sent 1,000 Men Expecting Sex and Drugs to His Ex-Boyfriend Using Grindr, A Lawsuit Says, Tyler Kingkade, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tylerkingkade/grindr-herrick-lawsuit-230-online-stalking
[19] Grindr User Asks Supreme Court to Hear App Harassment Case, Alexis Kramer, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telecom-law/ex-grindr-user-asks-supreme-court-to-hear-app-harassment-case.
[20] Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed, Carrie Goldberg, https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed
[21] Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed, Carrie Goldberg, https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed
[22] A Man Sent 1,000 Men Expecting Sex and Drugs to His Ex-Boyfriend Using Grindr, A Lawsuit Says, Tyler Kingkade, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tylerkingkade/grindr-herrick-lawsuit-230-online-stalking
[23] Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed, Carrie Goldberg, https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed
