A Grindr harassment suit could change the legal landscape for tech — and free speech
A Grindr harassment suit could change the legal landscape for tech —
and free speech
Months of harassment led Matthew
Herrick to file a lawsuit against the dating app — and he's using laws
meant to protect consumers from dangerous products to do so.
His former partner created fake
profiles on the app to impersonate Herrick and then direct men to show up at
Herrick’s home and the restaurant where he worked asking for sex, sometimes
more than a dozen times per day. Herrick took action against his ex, filing 14
police reports.
He also filed a lawsuit against
Grindr in 2017. The alleged harassment continued for months, even after Herrick
obtained a temporary restraining order against Grindr that required the company
to disable the impersonating profiles.
Herrick’s story echoes the online
harassment that many people have experienced, often with little to no legal consequences
for the companies that created the technology in question. A 1996 law designed
to foster free speech online generally protects companies from liability.
But Herrick is pursuing an unusual
legal theory as he continues to push back against Grindr, arguing that tech
companies should face greater accountability for what happens on their
platforms. His lawsuit alleges that the software developers who write code for
Grindr have been negligent, producing an app that’s defective in its design and
that is “fundamentally unsafe” and “unreasonably dangerous” — echoing language
that’s more typically used in lawsuits about, say, a faulty kitchen appliance
or a defective car part.
If successful, the lawsuit could
bring about a significant legal change to the risks tech companies face for
what happens on their platforms, adding to growing public and political
pressure for change.
“This is a case about a company
abdicating responsibility for a dangerous product it released into the stream
of commerce,” his lawsuit argues, adding: “Grindr’s inaction enables the
weaponization of its products and services.”
SOFTWARE, HARD
PROBLEM
Lawsuits over product-related
injuries or harm fall under a category of the law known as products liability,
which exist to hold manufacturers responsible for defective items they put into
the “stream of commerce” and ultimately to keep people safe.
Those laws generally haven’t been
applied to software such as smartphone apps, but lawyers for Herrick aim to do
just that — a development that could reshape consumers’ relationship with
software, alter speech protections online and put pressure on Silicon Valley to
find flaws in products before introducing them to the world.
“Products liability started as
people thinking, ‘Oh, my stove burnt me,’ or, ‘This saw cut my hand,’” said
Christopher Robinette, a law professor at Widener University who specializes in
that area of the law. “But as people have started to purchase more
information-related items, we have to reconsider how we classify those things.”
The tech industry is pushing back
on Herrick, saying in court papers that he is trying to artfully skirt the
protections afforded free speech online.
Carrie Goldberg, one of Herrick’s
attorneys, said they decided to pursue the argument out of frustration with
Grindr’s failure to add product features to reduce harassment.
“Grindr has created a defective
product,” she said in an interview. “It was very foreseeable that their product
could be used this way.”
Grindr said in a statement on
Thursday that it is committed to creating a safe and secure environment, and
that any fraudulent account is a clear violation of its terms of service. Its
staff removes offending profiles as appropriate, the company said.
THE UNTOUCHABLES
In court, Grindr is relying on the
more sweeping defense allowed by the 1996 law known as the Communications
Decency Act. The act’s Section 230 has been interpreted by courts to immunize
internet services from liability for content posted online by third parties —
whether ex-boyfriends or otherwise.
Comments
Post a Comment