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?
I understand why the plaintiff is upset. But the person to be upset at is his harasser. There'd be no lawsuit if this was being done in the newspaper classified ads, or on a bulletin board. It wouldn't be possible to confirm that a picture sent in by someone over the internet is actually the sender. The correct person to sue is his harasser. Possibly even look into prosecution (I would be shocked if this didn't go into criminal harassment).
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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
There should have been no need to get a restraining order to remvoe the profiles. (why yes I did read (scan) the article).
Yes grinder should do more, but only on the logical side. Steps says like.
1. User reports abuse of him on a profile he did not set up.
2. User p[rooves they are who they say they are (photo id and webcam you know like many sites ask for).
3. They either delete the profile or reset the password and let the real user do it.
4. They make sure no accounts pertaining to this person can be set up without authority from the real user.
Yes some of these will require extra effort but it is something that needs to be done to stop wasting police and court times with things that should be resolvable without their need.
Yes for continued action maybe a restraining order on the actual creator of these polive profiles is a good idea. However if setting the profiles was slightly harder then many would not bother. Yes the idiot is wholely responsible for the harasement, but Grindr is also criminal in action by allowing it to go on multiple times and requireing more than simple proof you are who you are to take it down and stop it happening again.
Hiding behind a law to stop you doing simple things is disgusting. But we get back to the old palce of apparently needing special laws for the internet. No we do not. Being on the internet does not make something new. And this was not the indented outcome of the law anyway. Just argued by corrupt lawers becuase the internet is confusing to us and let's hold it up on a pedastel as something different so we can make money a second time.
+----------------- | What is the question!
I don't think that Grindr should be held accountable for defects in the software, but it should be made accountable for running a service which enabled the harassment and not coming to the person's aid.
It's perfectly fine to have bugs and design flaws, it's something that happens because developers are humans and prone to make mistakes and not think of all consequences. A developer shouldn't be held legally responsible for a bug. However, a social service shouldn't be exempt from consequences. Law enforcement should be given a means to enforce laws on a social network.
Even the phone company has a duty to act when it is informed of harassment and the person being harassed gets a restraining order. Just bring a carrier doesn't mean you can ignore such use of your network no matter what.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"Quote"
Plaintiff submitted numerous requests to Grindr, as king it to implement basic control over its product and to disable the impersonating a ccounts. Plaintiff filed this action because Grindr failed to respond to those requests.
End Quote
Jack of all trades,master of none
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.
> If a company acknowledges potential liability ... I would imagine the company would be in a much stronger position to defend against claims.
When they say "never talk to the police", they mean you. You should never talk to cops if you are ever suspected of anything.
>Imagine a merchant who sells knives and the clerk explains to each customer how the knife can hurt them. Is that company likely to be liable for a knife injury? I seriously doubt it.
Plaintiffs attorney is going to ask, in as many different ways as they can get away with, "so you knew this was a particularly dangerous knife, so much so that you felt the need to warn customers that you were selling a particularly dangerous product, yet you sold it anyway, knowing it was a dangerous product?"
The company's defense to a product liability claim is to try to convince the judge or jury that the product is not particularly dangerous. Grindr would say it's no more dangerous than a newspaper, as other commenters have said here.
Morally should Grindr do some things to improve safety? Perhaps so. That's a different discussion. Does admitting liability help you in court? No way.