Doe v. Grindr Inc.
Issue
Whether Section 230 bars state law product liability and negligence claims brought by an underage user against Grindr based on alleged design defects, failure to warn, and negligent misrepresentation, and whether plaintiff stated a plausible TVPRA sex trafficking claim sufficient to invoke FOSTA's exception to Section 230 immunity.
What Happened
The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of all claims brought by an underage Grindr user alleging state law product liability (defective design, defective manufacturing, failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation) and negligence claims, as well as a federal sex trafficking claim under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The court held that all state law claims were barred by Section 230 because they "necessarily implicate[d] Grindr's role as a publisher of third-party content." The court further held that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that Grindr was either a knowing perpetrator of sex trafficking or knowingly benefitted from sex trafficking, meaning the plaintiff could not invoke FOSTA's statutory exception to Section 230 immunity under the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2018.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces broad Section 230 protection for dating and social platforms against product liability and design defect claims when those claims are characterized as targeting the platform's publisher function over third-party content. The ruling also establishes a demanding pleading standard for invoking FOSTA's exception to Section 230, requiring plaintiffs to plausibly allege knowing participation in or benefit from sex trafficking—a threshold this plaintiff could not meet despite allegations of underage use and harm.