Original dating headlines
"Much of our work is about finding the cracks and holes in [Section] 230," said Goldberg, who is known for taking on sexual privacy and revenge porn cases.
"Companies don't deserve special protections when their product is dangerous and [Section] 230 doesn't give them protection in such cases." Originally filed in a New York state court in January, the case was moved to federal court at Grindr's request in February.
"[Companies] can identify and stop this kind of stuff -- they just don't want to take on the obligation." Attorney David Gingras, who frequently defends companies from lawsuits under Section 230, said these types of cases will likely increase.
"There is currently a war between online speech providers and people who are unhappy with that speech. People do the worst things online and it sucks -- but that's not the issue.
"What are Grindr's legal responsibilities," asks Aaron Mackey, a Frank Stanton legal fellow at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
"And what are its corporate and ethical responsibilities to its users when it learns that its platform is being abused in this way? As with many complaints against tech platforms, Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act is at play in the Grindr case.
"If the manufacturer and seller both know the battery could explode, there's a duty to inform users of the risk," she said.
Goldberg doesn't plan to back down; she's already planning her next move: pushing Google and Apple to remove Grindr from their app store "If a court won't hold Grindr responsible for having a dangerous product ...According to the complaint, there have been more than 100 reports flagging the fake profiles in Grindr's app, resulting in only generic replies from Grindr ("Thank you for your report.").