Doe v. Grindr Inc.

Issue: Insufficient text to determine — this document contains no legal question related to Section 230, First Amendment doctrine, platform liability, or AI/ML regulation.

This document is a Southern District of New York dismissal order in *Paguada v. American Retail Supply Corp.*, No. 21-CV-733, an entirely unrelated action. The court dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) after plaintiff repeatedly failed to meet court-imposed deadlines for filing a motion for default judgment, having missed extensions set for both May 21 and July 30, 2021. The document bears no relation to *Doe v. Grindr Inc.* or to any of the three subject-matter areas covered by this newsletter.

Insufficient text to determine — this document is misfiled or misattributed and presents no holding, argument, or procedural development pertinent to Section 230 immunity, First Amendment platform doctrine, or civil liability for AI/ML systems.

Issue: Whether § 230 bars claims arising from Grindr's design features and failure to implement safety measures that allegedly enabled harassment and assault of platform users.

In a significant Ninth Circuit reconsideration of the Grindr platform's liability, the court addressed claims that Grindr's design choices — including its geolocation features and lack of effective identity verification — made it a tool for stalking and assault. The Ninth Circuit analyzed whether the design-defect framework from Lemmon v. Snap applied to the Grindr context, and whether § 230 barred claims targeting the platform's own architectural choices rather than its publication of third-party content.

Represents the Ninth Circuit's return to the Grindr platform years after Herrick v. Grindr in the Second Circuit. The case tests the reach of the Lemmon design-defect doctrine in a non-speed-filter context — specifically, whether geolocation and identity features of a dating app constitute the platform's own product conduct. The interplay between this Ninth Circuit decision and Herrick in the Second Circuit reflects the ongoing circuit-level divergence on platform liability for design features that enable offline harm.