Grindr Cleared of Charges in Revenge Rape Case

A New York man said Grindr was partly responsible when his ex-partner allegedly created false profiles on the app and directed men to his home, some seeking violent sex.

Neal Broverman

Neal Broverman is the Editorial Director, Print of Pride Media, publishers of The Advocate, Out, Out Traveler, and Plus, spending more than 20 years in journalism. He indulges his interest in transportation and urban planning with regular contributions to Los Angeles magazine, and his work has also appeared in the Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He lives in the City of Angels with his husband, children, and their chiweenie.

Read Full Bio

Neal Broverman

January 26 2018 10:32 AM EST

January 26 2018 10:33 AM EST

Nbroverman

Sorry to interrupt...
But we wanted to take a moment to thank you for reading. Your support makes original LGBTQ+ reporting possible. Help us hold Trump accountable.

One-time Monthly

$19.67 $50 Other

$5 $19.67 $50

Matthew Herrick's case against Grindr -- which charged the hook-up app held responsibility for Herrick's former partner creating fake profiles that directed hundreds of men to his home and office -- was dismissed on Thursday by a federal judge in New York.

Herrick's ex allegedly created Grindr profiles with Herrick's image, advertising a desire for fetishistic sex, bondage, role playing, and rape fantasies. Hundreds showed up at his apartment and workplace; many were angry when they were turned away and a fight even broke out between one Grindr user and Herrick's roommate. It's not clear what actions Herrick plans to take against his former partner.

Herrick claims he was forced to contact Grindr more than 50 times to remove the fake profiles and said the West Hollywood-based company lacks the technology to effectively combat such abusive actions. In contrast, Herrick claims he contacted Scruff with the same complaints and they quickly took action and banned his ex's IP address from their app.

U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni was unconvinced that Grindr held responsibility over their user's actions -- something widely expected from legal watchers, considering a widely-referenced 1996 law that protects technology companies. Caproni believed Grindr didn't misrepresent their actions on their terms of service page, which claims they have a right to remove illicit content but doesn't promise to.