The Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it will not take up the case concerning whether the LGBTQ dating app Grindr can be held responsible for matching a teenager with adult men who subsequently assaulted him.

This decision means the justices are steering clear of a fresh debate surrounding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a provision that grants tech companies significant protection from lawsuits related to user-generated content.

The case was brought forward by an anonymous petitioner, referred to as John Doe, who detailed in his appeal that he was 15 years old when he registered on Grindr, falsely claiming to be an adult.

In April 2019, over a span of four days, Doe claims the app connected him with four adult men, each of whom allegedly raped him on successive days. Three of these men have since been sentenced to prison for the sexual crimes committed against Doe, while the fourth individual remains at large.

Representing Doe, attorney Carrie Goldberg argued in the petition that the case highlights “viable allegations of platform misconduct” that “undeniably” led to harm. She contended that the app was marketed to minors, profited from their participation, and facilitated introductions between children and nearby adults for in-person encounters.

Lower courts dismissed the lawsuit under Section 230. But Goldberg argued that Doe’s theories of liabilities “stem only from the sex hookup platform’s own acts and omissions, none of which involve publishing functions.” 

“This is the perfect case for the Court to finally bring order to the law by crafting a cohesive interpretation of Section 230,” the petition reads.  

Section 230’s critics have long said it handed technology companies unchecked power, pointing to the challenges of prosecuting alleged harms stemming from social media.    

Grindr initially waived its right to respond but was asked to weigh in by the justices.  

The company described Doe as a teenager who “misrepresented his age to gain access to an adults-only dating app” and is now seeking to hold the app liable for his “encounters with criminals.”  

“The petition presents no circuit split, no urgent need for clarification, and no vehicle capable of generating useful guidance,” Grindr’s lawyers wrote in their brief responding to Doe’s petition.

“Petitioner’s tragic experience reflects the criminal conduct of his attackers, not any disharmony in federal law warranting this Court’s intervention. 

Last week, the justices turned away another Section 230 challenge that asked the high court to consider whether Meta should be held liable for contributing to the radicalization of Dylann Roof, the self-proclaimed white nationalist mass shooter.