Section 230 Doesn’t Provide a Basis To Remove Cases to Federal Court–A.R.K. v. Grindr

The court summarizes this case: Plaintiff alleges that Grindr and the individual defendants engaged in a conspiracy to produce and disseminate sexually explicit photographs and pornography, with Grindr providing the platform for anonymous meetings, communication, and dissemination. Section 230 may not work against a conspiracy claim, but otherwise Grindr’s role in “providing the platform for anonymous meetings, communication, and dissemination” is exactly what Section 230 should cover. Grindr removed the case from state to federal court on the basis of its Section 230 defense. The plaintiff successfully remands the case back to state court. The court says cases can be removed to federal court when all state law claims are preempted by federal law. Section 230(e)(3) negates that possibility: There is no indication that Congress meant to completely preempt state-law claims. In fact, the CDA provides that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to…

Read more detail on Recent Legal Marketing posts –

Related news:

This entry was posted in Legal Marketing and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply