On December 3, 2024, eight years after filing for Herrick v. Grindr, our firm AGAIN confronted the world’s largest gay dating app in the 9th Circuit. Grindr is once again trying to use Section 230 to avoid any duty of care – in this case, child rape.
Our client was 15 years old in a rural community living with Austism and ADHD when he downloaded Grindr hoping to meet other likeminded kids. He’d been swept up by Grindr’s marketing campaigns on TikTok and Instagram featuring gay youth. That day, Grindr matched him with nearby adults. He was raped by one that lived next to his school. The same thing happened the next three days with different strangers.
Grindr’s business model accepts that a huge number of its members are under the age of 18. It has no meaningful age restrictions. And it serves youth up on a platter to adults for in-person sexual hook-ups. The Journal of Adolescent Health says that half of sexually active youth had their first sexual experience on Grindr.
As a society we do not accept the rape of boys. We don’t accept it by the Catholic Church or the Boy Scouts of America. Why do we turn a blind eye when it comes to Grindr?
With our client, C.A. Goldberg, PLLC must hold Grindr accountable for the sexual abuse of children by marketing its product to kids and turning a blind eye to the proliferation of child rapes on its platforms.
On December 3, 2024, our founder Carrie Goldberg argued Doe v. Grindr in Pasadena in the 9th Circuit appealing the trial court’s baseless dismissal on Section 230 grounds. Shockingly, at the oral argument, Grindr argued that it doesn’t need to enforce its age restriction policy because there’s no legal obligation to not recommend adults and children for sex with each other. They are knowingly matching children and adults, and are taking zero accountability for it.
This is a huge case that will create precedent about the limits for big tech liability when it comes to apps knowingly harming children. Check out Carrie’s full argument. Carrie and Partner Naomi Leeds are lead counsel on this case.
This firm has been pioneering in the fight to hold tech liable. Learn more about our work against big tech here.
