Herrick v. Grindr, LLC
Issue
Whether § 230 bars tort claims against Grindr for failing to remove fake profiles and implement safety features, given that a malicious third party used the platform to orchestrate a harassment campaign against the plaintiff.
What Happened
Matthew Herrick's ex-boyfriend used Grindr to create fake profiles impersonating Herrick, which directed hundreds of men to Herrick's home and workplace for sex. Herrick notified Grindr over 100 times but Grindr failed to remove the profiles. Herrick sued Grindr for products liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and other theories, arguing in part that Grindr's defective location features and failure to implement adequate impersonation safeguards caused his injuries. The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal across the board. It rejected the Ninth Circuit's Internet Brands reasoning in a footnote, treating Grindr's failure to act on Herrick's warnings as a failure to remove content — publisher activity barred by § 230.
Why It Matters
The sharpest circuit-level rejection of the Internet Brands framework. The Second Circuit effectively held that a platform's failure to remove user content after notice — even notice of a coordinated offline harm campaign — is publisher activity within § 230(c)(1). The case illustrates the breadth of § 230 immunity in the Second Circuit and the difficulty plaintiffs face in finding a viable legal theory when a platform's inaction causes serious offline harm.
How accurate was this summary?