Carrie A. GoldbergKonto zweryfikowane

and then exploiting the geo-location and DM features of grindr to send these folks (often invoking rape fantasies). Our client did all the usual stuff -- order of protection, police reports, alerted grindr. Finally we got an order restraining grindr from letting this

dude use the product. By then Matthew's life was pretty much overtaken by fear. Some days as many as 16 strangers came to him in person. Some got very angry when told to leave. Grindr refused to help in any way, said they didn't have the technology to help.

We sued based on a number of theories including products liability and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). But the judge tossed the suit because she says tech companies like grindr are immune from liability. Crazy, right?

So Grindr can be do this to anybody and not be held accountable. You don't even need to be a Grindr user to be impersonated on Grindr. The thing I wanted to say, though, is that the judge said that Grindr also couldn't be held liable for IIED b/c Grindr's

actions (i.e. ignoring Matthew's pleas for help and restraining order) were not truly outrageous conduct. They said that grindr's reliance on being immune from liability rendered its conduct not outrageous.

Think about that, if a tech company "thinks" it's immune from liability, that's enough for any heinous action or inaction to not be intentional. So we've got Section 230 (the law that immunizes tech companies from SOME legal claims) actually being used to justify cruelty and

laziness. Totally backwards. And it's not just Grindr -- it's all our most omniscient and omnipotent tech companies -- Facebook, Google,Amazon. Our case #herrickVgrindr is on appeal. 2nd Circuit Jan 7 10am NYC 40 Foley Sq.