Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act often shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content. Courts usually hold that companies aren’t responsible for a user’s violent conduct simply because the person used the app. Section 230 blocks claims that treat the platform as the “publisher” of a harmful message or profile, so many lawsuits fail when they focus only on how the app presented or hosted information.
The good news: Section 230 doesn’t block lawsuits based on a company’s own conduct. You may still have a viable claim against a dating app company if you suffered sexual assault from an app user. If a platform made operational choices that created foreseeable dangers, courts sometimes allow claims to move forward.
Premises Liability Concepts Applied to Digital Platforms
Courts sometimes apply premises liability principles even when the platform doesn’t control physical property. The idea comes from a broader duty to protect users from foreseeable harm in spaces a company controls. Some lawsuits argue that a dating app functions as a type of virtual premises. If a company creates an environment where people connect and meet offline, and it knows that offline assaults keep happening in similar ways, it may have a duty to take reasonable steps to address those risks.
These arguments remain developing law, and outcomes vary widely. Still, the legal system sometimes recognizes that digital platforms may owe limited duties when their design choices create predictable real-life dangers.
Negligent Security and Failure to Protect Users
Negligent security claims traditionally apply to property owners who fail to provide basic safety protections. Dating-app-related claims adapt this theory by focusing on the company’s failure to use reasonable digital safety measures. Negligent security claims usually focus on whether:
- The company knew about prior assaults or similar incidents
- The app used systems that made it easy for dangerous users to create new profiles
- Complaints about specific users went ignored or received automated responses only
- Safety features existed on paper but didn’t function in practice
When you show that a company knew about safety problems but failed to act, courts sometimes let negligent security claims move forward—even when Section 230 blocks other theories.
Platform Vetting Responsibilities
Dating platforms usually argue that vetting users would violate Section 230 because it relates to publishing decisions. Still, some cases move past dismissal when the plaintiff shows that the company adopted a vetting or safety program but didn’t actually follow it. Once a company voluntarily creates safety rules, courts may consider whether it acted reasonably in carrying them out. For example:
- Running background check programs but failing to remove violent users
- Advertising safety features that don’t work as described
- Claiming to screen for certain behaviors but allowing known offenders back onto the platform
These cases don’t accuse the company of failing to publish or block certain content. They accuse the company of mishandling systems it chose to operate.
Criminal Prosecution vs. Civil Claims
A criminal prosecution targets the person who committed the assault. Criminal cases punish the offender but don’t compensate you directly.
Civil claims serve a different purpose. You can file a lawsuit against the attacker and, in some situations, against a platform whose negligence contributed to the assault. Civil claims request compensation for your trauma and financial losses.
You don’t have to wait for a criminal conviction to bring a civil case. The standards of proof also differ. Civil cases use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which is much lower than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
A civil claim can potentially recover compensation for:
- Medical expenses
- Therapy and long-term trauma treatment
- Lost income
- Diminished earning capacity
- Pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Punitive damages, in rare cases, when the company’s conduct shows reckless disregard
Learn More from Our Experienced Chicago Personal Injury Attorneys
If you’ve suffered sexual assault and believe a dating app may be responsible, we can help. The attorneys at Hale & Monico can walk you through potential claims and evaluate whether Section 230 applies. Contact Hale & Monico for guidance on your next steps.