A federal law which generally shields social media companies and other app operators from lawsuits also protects gay dating app Grindr from a lawsuit brought by a young Canadian man who claims the app operators' refusal to verify if app users are actually over age 18 effectively means gay sex predators can use the app to set up and rape underage boys, a federal appeals court has rule.
On Feb. 18, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Grindr that, since the young man can't show Grindr knew he was only 15 years old when four gay men used the app to meet the boy and rape him, the young man can't now sue Grindr for allegedly violating sex trafficking laws.
The plaintiff's "references to Grindr's constructive knowledge of child sexual abuse on its platform do not plausibly allege Grindr's active participation in a sex trafficking venture," the judges wrote.
"...At most, it alleges that Grindr turned a blind eye to sex trafficking on the App and generally benefitted from sex traffickers' use of the App."
The decision was authored by Ninth Circuit Judge Sandra S. Ikuta. Ninth Circuit judges Jay S. Bybee and Bridget S. Bane concurred in the ruling.
The ruling upheld the decision of Los Angeles federal district court Judge Otis D. Wright II.
In the rulings, all of the judges agreed the young man's lawsuit is precluded by the legal provision known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The lawsuit was filed in 2023 by a plaintiff identified only as John Doe.
According to court documents, Doe was 15 years old in 2019 when he registered and began using the Grindr app, which provides a platform for gay and bisexual men to connect to date or engage in sex.
Under Grindr's terms, users are required to be at least 18 years old to use the service.
Grindr, however, takes no further action to verify that users actually are actually 18 years or older.
According to court documents, Grindr advertises its app on other social media platforms popular with teens and children, including Instagram and TikTok.
Grindr is also free to download and use, making its revenue from adverisers on its platform and paid subscriptions for so-called enhanced features.
According to the complaint, Doe downloaded the app, pretending to be 18 years old.
In April 2019, Doe said he used the app to connect with four adult men, all of whom allegedly raped him on consecutive days.
Three of those men were convicted criminally and the fourth man has yet to be caught.
Court documents do not state where the alleged rapes took place. However, Doe resided in Canada at the time.
In his lawsuit, Doe asserted Grindr illegally allowed their app to match "adults with children for illegal sexual activity;" did not warn users "about known risks of child sexual abuse;" and violation of the federal sex trafficking laws, known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVRA), as well as state laws.
In their rulings, however, the judges all agreed with Grindr that Section 230 barred the claims, because Grindr is protected as a publisher of "third-party content."
Section 230 generally immunizes internet service providers and social media platforms from being held legally liable for content posted online. It has most often been used by social media companies, such as the operators of Facebook, X.com and TikTok, to defend themselves against lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for posts on their sites.
Section 230 presumes that since the companies don't exercise editorial control over the content on their sites, they cannot be held liable for it.
In this case, Doe attempted to argue his accusations under the TVRA should prevent Section 230 from shielding Grindr from his lawsuit.
The judges, however, said that Grindr's refusal to verify users' age beyond their own attestations did not mean Grindr was participating in any kind of sex trafficking operation or had active knowledge of the actions of the sexual predators who raped Doe.
"... The (complaint) merely shows that Grindr provided a platform that facilitated sharing of messages between users," Ikuta wrote. "The (complaint's) allegation that Grindr 'knowingly introduces children to adults for in-person sexual encounters,' is not supported by any plausible factual allegations.
"To the contrary, the (complaint) asserts that Grindr matches users who have represented to the App that they are over eighteen years old. The allegation that Grindr 'recruits both children and adults to use' the App does not plausibly allege that Grindr’s own conduct perpetrated sex trafficking; rather, it alleges general advertising of the App on social media.
"At most, the (complaint) shows only that Grindr 'turned a blind eye' to facilitating matches between minors and adults, which is insufficient to show even beneficiary liability."
Doe was represented in the action by attorneys Carrie Goldberg, Roxanne Rimonte and Naomi E. Leeds, of CA Goldberg PLLC, of Brooklyn, New York.
Grindr was represented by attorneys Ambika Kumar and Adam S. Sieff, of the firm of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, of Seattle and Los Angeles.