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?
"They could have had the same thing much easier by simply not using it."
Wow, you have serious reading comprehension failure.
This was not their account. They were impersonated by someone else.
You'd probsbly be upset if an acquaintance got photos off you From Facebook and impersonated you on Grindr and sent people to your house looking for sex. Or if you don't have Facebook, someone could simply take photos of you on their phone and then do it. All without you having to have used Grindr, or even know what it is.
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.
They are all already policing their platforms for legal but undesirable content. They should simply extend this policy to illegal content, AKA follow takedown requests.
The victim in this case should have issued a DMCA takedown request for his photos on Grindr, because then they have to take it down immediately with no questions asked. Any new account that then gets created with those photos results in Grindr legally on the hook.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility and liability? Why aren't the harassers arrested and charged?
Well, Grindr isn't getting arrested and charged, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.
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.)
Grindr being a villain in this suit does not make the harasser a non-villain. Both of them are villains in this suit but Grindr is advertising sexual services of someone who doesn't want to provide these services. This suit is to make them stop that.
How would you react if someone posted a full-page ad in the newspaper (running for the next 6 months) advertising your photo, name, address, workplace and phonenumber for sexual services, and the paper refused to cancel the ad after you drew attention to it?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
"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.