Grindr's liability for the crimes of its users in California

Does Grindr have liability for sexual crimes performed by its users against other users?

On February 1, 2021, KGET.com reported that a 32 year old Bakersfield man faces prosecution for physical (sexual) assault on a “teen” that he met on the online application Grindr. The question then follows: what kind of liability does Grindr face for sexual assault performed by one user against another.

In short, it is unlikely that Grindr has any civil liability for the posts and interactions that originate on behalf of it’s users, even when they lead to sexual assaults. In Doe II v. MySpace, Inc., four minor girls sue MySpace for culpability in sexual assaults committed by men against them.¹ They met the men through MySpace’s platform, and the court found that MySpace had statutory immunity from civil suits in cases like these. (see below)

The criminal culpability is another matter. However, an essential element to a criminal act is an “evil intent” (mens rea). Even under accomplice or co-conspirator theory, one must show that the person had an “evil intent” or an intent to further the crime. ² Here, It is unlikely that prosecution will be able to show that Grindr had an intent to further crime by providing it’s matchmaking service.

Grindr likely has no liability for criminal acts, and likely enjoys immunity granted by federal statute for civil claims against it.

Doe II v. MySpace Inc. (2009)

Background

To answer this question, we will look at a Doe II v. MySpace Inc., supra, 175 Cal.App.4th 561, 563 [96 Cal.Rptr.3d 148]. In this California case, four separate cases are reviewed at the same time. In each case, a minor girl (aged 13 to 15) sued MySpace for negligence, gross negligence and strict product liability. Individually, each claimed that MySpace should bear responsibility for sexual assaults that occurred against them, in part, because of MySpace’s online platform, which enabled the men to find victims absent adequate controls.

The court takes special note of MySpace’s terms of service (end user agreement), which provide several warnings. ³ The warnings include: “Don’t post anything you wouldn’t want the world to know,” “Avoid posting anything that would make it easy for a stranger to find you,” “People aren’t always who they say they are,” “Don’t mislead people into thinking you’re older or younger.” ⁴

Argument / Claim

The plaintiffs claim that MySpace reasonably could foresee that minors would use the site, and MySpace did not take reasonable precautions to make a safe space for people to interact. ⁵ “MySpace is aware that its Web site poses a danger to children, facilitating an astounding number of attempted and actual sexual assaults . . .” ⁶

Procedural History

MySpace successfully had all the cases dismissed before trial. ⁷ MySpace moved for dismissal claiming that under United States Codes Title 47 section 230, it had an immunity for the conduct of its users, and the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to get around that immunity. ⁸

Law

Under United States Codes Title 47 section 230, the Congress stated the policy reasons that it hopes to support with this law. In this code section, Congress established a general policy to promote and protect online services that encourage the exchange of ideas and promote free association between its users. ⁹ “The express language of the statute indicates Congress did not intend to limit its grant of immunity to defamation claims. Instead, the legislative history demonstrates Congress intended to extend immunity to all civil claims.” ¹⁰

In a review of federal case law, the court finds that “[i]t would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible problems.” ¹² “Congress considered the weight of the speech interests implicated and chose to immunize service providers to avoid any such restrictive effect.” ¹³

In a similar but previous case against MySpace, originating out of Texas, “[t]he Fifth Circuit interpreted [section 230] to provide broad immunity extending to cases arising from the publication of user-generated content.” ¹⁴

Texas law and the corresponding Fifth Circuit decisions are persuasive but not binding in California.¹⁵ (See this article on the effects of stare decisis.) California is within the Ninth Circuit, so decisions within the Ninth Circuit have a stronger, binding effect.

“In a different context, the Ninth Circuit extended section 230 immunity to an online dating service, finding it was not liable when an unidentified party posted a false online profile of an actress, which resulted in harassing phone calls, letters, and faxes to her home.” ¹⁶

California’s Supreme Court “noted in Barrett that the immunity conferred by section 230 applies even when self-regulation is unsuccessful, or completely unattempted.”¹⁷

Court’s Analysis

Quoted from Doe II v. MySpace Inc., supra:

At its core, appellants want MySpace to regulate what appears on its Web site. Appellants argue they do not “allege liability on account of MySpace’s exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions, such as editing, altering, or deciding whether or not to publish certain material, which is the test for whether a claim treats a website as a publisher under Barrett.” But that is precisely what they allege; that is, they want MySpace to ensure that sexual predators do not gain access to (i.e., communicate with) minors on its Web site. That type of activity—to restrict or make available certain material—is expressly covered by section 230.

¹⁸

“In all but one of [the cases reviewed], the harm actually resulted from conduct that occurred outside of the information exchanged, whether that information was actionable or not.”¹⁹ Similarly, the sexual assaults against the minor Julia Does in this case occurred outside of the MySpace platform and the information exchanged thereon.

Conclusion

“Given the general consensus to interpret section 230 immunity broadly, extending from Zeran to the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Doe v. MySpace, Inc. addressing identical facts and legal issues, we also conclude that section 230 immunity shields MySpace in this case.” ²⁰

Application to Grindr

Just like MySpace, Grindr will not be held liable for posts generated by third party users. Here, the Bakersfield local created a profile and used it to find other users. But Grindr did not participate in creating posts, editing posts, or otherwise altering or interacting with the communication stream between the users. Just like the sexual assaults in Doe II, the sexual assault occurred offline. The crime was not committed on the Grindr platform, but was committed outside the platform and unrelated to the platforms primary purpose.

Grindr is therefore not likely liable for any civil liability to the victims of sexual crimes associated with its use.

Hire me for legal research