Slashdot Mirror
Grindr Harassment Victim Asks: Are Tech Companies Immune From Product Liablity Laws? (nbcnews.com)
Why is Grindr being sued by Matthew Herrick, an aspiring actor working in a restaurant in New York? "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."
But 14 police reports later, Herrick's lawsuit is now arguing that all tech companies should face greater accountability for what happens on their platforms, reports NBC News: 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...."
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. That immunity, though, is subject to a raging debate about whether social media companies and other tech firms should be so free to introduce products without much forethought about the hazards they could create.... Herrick's case has drawn interest from the tech industry, its supporters and its critics who see his lawsuit as a test for a possible new legal theory for holding tech firms to account.
"When you make a manufacturer effectively immune, it means that the consequences will be borne by the user," said Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. But should tech companies face product liability laws normally reserved for appliances? "As people have started to purchase more information-related items, we have to reconsider how we classify those things," argues Christopher Robinette, a law professor at Widener University.
If Herrick's suit is successful, NBC reports it "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." But what do Slashdot's readers think?
Should tech companies be immune from product liability laws?
But 14 police reports later, Herrick's lawsuit is now arguing that all tech companies should face greater accountability for what happens on their platforms, reports NBC News: 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...."
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. That immunity, though, is subject to a raging debate about whether social media companies and other tech firms should be so free to introduce products without much forethought about the hazards they could create.... Herrick's case has drawn interest from the tech industry, its supporters and its critics who see his lawsuit as a test for a possible new legal theory for holding tech firms to account.
"When you make a manufacturer effectively immune, it means that the consequences will be borne by the user," said Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. But should tech companies face product liability laws normally reserved for appliances? "As people have started to purchase more information-related items, we have to reconsider how we classify those things," argues Christopher Robinette, a law professor at Widener University.
If Herrick's suit is successful, NBC reports it "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." But what do Slashdot's readers think?
Should tech companies be immune from product liability laws?
The Internet is global, and any platform built on it is going to reach millions, if not billions, of people. If we pass laws that require companies to police their users, we will simply lose the platforms. Whatever happened to personal responsibility and liability? Why aren't the harassers arrested and charged? Why is Grindr the villain in this suit?
(I know there are people here who would love to see the more popular platforms disappear, but that's just petty jealousy and elitism talking.)
This is on the bottom of things to be upset about on the internet.
This is standard harassment, covered by a multitude of laws in every state, and federally.
--
The Internet is becoming the town square for the global village of tomorrow. -- Bill Gates
But he needs to think beyond his anger for a few minutes.
Mr Herrick is advocating if person A comes into the restaurant he works at, and harasses person B already there eating, that his place of employment is 100% responsible in the liability for not doing anything to prevent the restaurants service being used in that way.
How many lawsuits of the type Mr Herrick is desiring will it take to put that restaurant out of business?
What if the restaurant is used as a location to make a serious death threat? We currently jail those who are responsible for making such a threat. Being a restaurant that is now 100% at fault, do we instead shut them down for 30 days? Revoke the corporate charter? Or just force the owners to shell out millions of dollars?
Not only will he never be able to work again but every other employee there will lose their jobs due to his stupid desires.
How about a written death threat towards person B by name, that is taped up on Mr Herricks front door?
Is he now to be jailed due to being responsible for that death threat being issued? He seems to want that responsibility for some reason so I say yes we should give him what he wants, but only him, and not inflict his ill thought out stupidity on the rest of the country.
There'd be no lawsuit if this was being done in the newspaper classified ads, or on a bulletin board.
Completely agree in principle... but in practice what the internet changes is the speed and scale of the potential harm that can be done via a high-profile App where a malicious post can be created for free, in seconds, and can instantly reaches a global audience without any sort of human sanity checking. The perpetrator doesn't even need to get up off their bar stool or even interact with another human (which may not be infallible, but would put a severe damper on abuse and allow the publisher to impose their own rules and guidelines). You probably wouldn't get a dozen responses a day - continuing for weeks.
Regardless of the law, if a company is going to create - for profit - a new service, they should take some responsibility for the consequences. "Its only a dating App where people can post their photos and contact details with a strong implication that they're interested in more than just coffee - what could possibly go wrong?" is no longer a safe or realistic attitude. For a dating site not to have precautions in place (such as a compulsory "escrow" service for contacting partners and a credible mechanism for stopping people posting their locations) is grossly irresponsible. I have no idea if this applies to Grindr, but if they do make it easy to create a fake profile then they deserve what they get. Ultimately, you need a human in the loop to prevent abuse - and one of the reason some internet services are so wildly successful is that they're entirely automated.
Even on Slashdot, If I posted an obviously abusive message inviting people to someone's address for sex, it would quickly get modded to oblivion - and on several occasions I've told people who ask whether they can have a comments section on their website I've replied "sure, but who is going to volunteer to monitor it and deal with any problems?"
Going after the perpetrator is, of course, perfectly proper and important, but can only happen after the damage is done, and the world has an infinite supply of perpetrators to take the place of the ones you punish.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
I'm guessing the former friend doesn't have the money which Grindr does. This lawsuit isn't about any kind of "what's right," it's about getting money.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The correct person to sue is his harasser.
But there's no money in that.
bickerdyke
Give him money for something they didn't do.
So he wants them to moderate the speech their platform enables.
I can't see how THAT could possibly end badly for all parties involved!
How about a written death threat towards person B by name, that is taped up on Mr Herricks front door?
Then he sues the manufacturer of the door, the company that made the paper and the green crayon used to write the threat, the company that made the tape, the makers of the varnish on the door which conspired to hold the note up, the builders who set the concrete floor he stood on while taping the note up and the Phoenicians for inventing the alphabet used to write the note.
There! Did I leave anyone out?
My question is what basic controls?
I get the whole thing about deactivating the fake accounts. Grindr being unwilling to move fast on that issue is a dick move on their part. I get the court order, and that seems like the right response to that part of it.
The whole point of Grindr seems to be anonymous hookups for gay dudes. Does he want to force them to de-anonymize everyone? Would he be satisfied with just being able to easily and quickly report the abusive accounts? Does he want to be able to issue DMCA takedown notices (one of his harms is copyright infringement, presumable over a profile photo)? The suit talks about using image recognition and prohibiting proxy use. That doesn't seem like what a court would call a "narrowly tailored" response.
I would hope that he could go to the police and file charges against the ex-boyfriend. If there are threats of violence (as described in the suit) the cops should be able to get a court order for access records looking for IP addresses. Maybe the cops don't take harassment claims among the gay community seriously in his jurisdiction?
Also, a huge part of the claims of the case is that Grindr's geo-location service is a central part of the problem. I don't see how that's part of the problem if the stalker guy is using fake accounts. Wouldn't the geo-location match the strangers to the stalker's phone? These guys are being directed to his home and workplace, though.
I get that the dude is upset. That makes perfect sense to me. It just seems like he's suing the deepest pocket rather than pursuing the source of the problem. Except for the bullshit about not closing the fake accounts, I don't see what he wants Grindr to do to prevent this from happening without negatively impacting all of the other users (and a quick google search says there's a lot of dudes using that service).
So, that was my question. Details, details.