Social media sites are transforming not only the daily lives of consumers, but also how companies interact with consumers. Here at Morrison Foerster, across all of our practice groups, we are seeing complex, cutting-edge legal issues arising out of social media. As with the Internet boom during the mid-to-late 1990s, social media is generating new legal questions at a far faster pace than the law’s ability to provide answers to such questions. In an effort to stay on top of these emerging issues, and to keep our clients and friends informed of new developments, Morrison Foerster publishes this blog devoted to the law and business of social media.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

sociallyaware-abajournalweb100-1

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data- and technology-intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud-based technology, digital media (social media, AR/VR, gaming, streaming media, AdTech), AI, healthcare, consumer electronics, e-commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on branding and marketing, trademark licensing, and content-related transactions, as well as the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin-offs, and private equity investments.He has represented clients such as Autodesk, Meta, OpenAI, Splunk, Konami, Kaiser Permanente, SoftBank, Visa, and Yahoo, among others.Aaron has been recognized by numerous publications for his work on market-defining technology transactions. He is currently ranked by Chambers USA for “Technology Transactions.”Aaron also serves as co-editor of Socially Aware, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics. Aaron is also a sought-after speaker on new and emerging areas of law, and is a frequent presenter and panelist at conferences and legal services programs. In addition to his active practice, Aaron regularly provides pro bono assistance to various nonprofit and charitable organizations such as Common Sense Media and the Starlight Children’s Foundation. He is a member of the board of directors of California Lawyers for the Arts.While in law school at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Aaron served as executive editor of the California Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Following law school, Aaron served as law clerk to the Honorable William H. Orrick and the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, both United States District Judges for the Northern District of California.

rubin_aaron_blog_150x150.png

rubin_aaron_common_640x280.jpg

rubin_aaron_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

rubin_aaron_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

rubin_aaron_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

We know trademarks. With a team of more than 25 lawyers, including Professor J. Thomas McCarthy, world-renowned author of the well-respected McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, we are a one-stop practice for guarding valuable business assets.

Trademark

Band 1: Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright & Trade Secrets, California

Firm to Watch: Intellectual Property; Trade Marks, Copyright And Design

Firm to Watch: Intellectual Property: Trademarks: Non-Contentious

Silver: Firms: Enforcement and Litigation, California 

Bronze: Firms: Prosecution and Strategy, California

Aaron is the chair of our Technology Transactions Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals. Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data– and technology–intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud computing, AR/VR, AI, gaming, healthcare, consumer electronics, social media, e–commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin–offs, and private equity investments.

Aaron P. Rubin

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.Lawrence focuses his practice on technology transactions and licensing matters. His diverse experience includes advising on SaaS agreements, cross-licensing agreements, research and collaboration agreements, development agreements, and distribution agreements. He counsels a broad range of companies across the software, hardware, life sciences, biotech and FinTech spaces, as well as other entities including universities.He advises clients in connection with general corporate matters including contract negotiations, and leasing and technology placement agreements.Lawrence also serves as co-editor of <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/" target="_blank">Socially Aware</a>, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics.Prior to joining the firm, Lawrence was counsel at another major law firm. Before earning his law degree, Lawrence was a web consultant, project manager, and web developer in Portland, Oregon, where he managed and consulted on projects using industry methodologies and performed custom development and integration of content management systems.Lawrence was named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in 2015 and 2018–2022, and is licensed in both California and New York. Lawrence earned his J.D. from the University at Buffalo School of Law, where he was the electronic systems editor for the Buffalo Law Review and awarded the ABA-BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Law.

gallick_lawrence_blog_150x150.png

gallick_lawrence_common_640x280.jpg

gallick_lawrence_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gallick_lawrence_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gallick_lawrence_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Lawrence Gallick

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster.Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions. His clients include technology, digital media and content for television and music, financial services, and communications companies with diverse intellectual property assets and issues.His practice focuses on the legal aspects of developing, licensing, and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts, including outsourcing transactions, as well as content and data licenses. He regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to licensing and commercialization of digital media and content, digital content that is distributed over the Internet or streamed, mobile applications and social media, as well as the licensing of recorded music for distribution via digital platforms. Anthony is also experienced with issues relating to open-source software, software development, artificial intelligence and machine learning, cloud-based technology, and protection of proprietary information.Anthony has extensive experience working on matters involving disruptive technologies, such as blockchain. He has helped fintech clients with general intellectual property issues in connection with terms of service for online financial products and services.Anthony is an integral part of the outside pro bono legal team for nonprofit organizations based in New York, including advising clients on legal issues regarding entertainment, social media, privacy rights, and the negotiation of outsourcing and service agreements. Anthony received his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2009. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 2004.

ramirez_anthony_blog_150x150.png

ramirez_anthony_common_640x280.jpg

ramirez_anthony_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ramirez_anthony_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ramirez_anthony_social_600x600.jpg

Our M&A lawyers represent Fortune 500 companies, private equity firms, investment banks, and privately-held companies in their most high-profile and complex mergers and acquisitions.

Mergers + Acquisitions

M&A Lawyers & Capabilities

Ranked for M&A: Foreign Firms in Singapore

Ranked for Global Corporate/M&A 

Ranked in the “Elite” Category of Corporate/M&A – Nationwide

Ranked for Corporate/M&A – Northern California

Ranked Band 1 for California Corporate/M&A: Deals in Asia

Ranked in the “Highly Regarded” Category of New York Corporate/M&A

Ranked in the “Elite” Category of Corporate/M&A: International

Ranked Band 1 for Corporate/M&A in Japan

Ranked for Corporate/M&A: International in Singapore

Ranked for Corporate/M&A: Hong Kong-based (International Firms)

Ranked for Corporate/M&A: Mid-Market in Germany

Awarded Deal of the Year for Imerys Joint Venture with British Lithium

Two MoFo Japan Deals Shortlisted for M&A Deal of the Year (Premium)

Two MoFo China Deals Shortlisted M&A Deal of the Year (Premium and Midsize)

Five MoFo Lawyers Named to M&A Powerlist

Named a Leading Firm for M&A

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. He advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. His clients include technology, media, and communications companies with considerable intellectual property assets. His practice focuses on the legal aspects of licensing and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts. He also regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to mobile applications and social media.

Anthony M. Ramirez

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header.jpg

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

News and Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit.

Federal Circuitry

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contracts Insights

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

MoFo’s Socially Aware blog provides timely updates and analysis of the many complex and cutting-edge legal and business issues arising out of social media.

Socially Aware

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Socially Aware Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Socially Aware. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The Law and Business of Social Media

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Web Scraping

Advertising

Antitrust

Arbitration

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Autonomous Vehicles

Bankruptcy

Big Data

Blockchain

Class Actions

Cloud Computing

Compliance

Contracts

COPPA

Copyright

Crowdsourcing

Cyberbullying

Cybersecurity

Data Security

Defamation

Digital Content

Disappearing Content

Discovery

DMCA

E-Commerce

E-Discovery

E-Personation

Electronic Contracts

Employment Law

Endorsement Guides

Ephemeral Messaging

Ethics

European Union

Event

Fair Use

FDA Regulations

Financial Institutions

First Amendment

Fraud

Free Speech

GDPR

Hacking

Influencer Marketing

Infographic

Internet of Things

Investment Management Law

JOBS Act

Labor Law

Litigation

Live streaming

Marketing

Mobile

Online Contracts

Online Endorsements

Online Promotions

Online Reviews

Patent

Privacy

Product Liability

Protected Speech

Right of Publicity

Right To Be Forgotten

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Securities Law

Social Media Policy

Statistics

Status Updates

Stored Communications Act

Supreme Court

Terms of Use

UK High Court

User-Generated Content

Wearable Computers

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Lawrence W. Gallick

Social Links: Statehouse v. Smartphone

Federal Court Enjoins California Teen Privacy Law . . . Again

All Your Sale Are Belong to Us - Mitigating IP and Payments Risk in In-Game Economies (Part II – User-Generated Content and In-Game Payment Models)

A New California Digital Content Law Establishes New Requirements for Advertisers and Vendors

California’s Assembly Bill 587 Loses Key Provisions After Legal Challenge from X

LinkedIN

Social media safety is very much in the news these days, with policymakers unleashing a <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/just-a-minor-threat-online-safety-legislation-takes-off" target="_blank">torrent of legislation</a> to protect children online, such as age verification measures, parental consent mandates, data privacy requirements, and limits on data collection and targeted advertising. The social media safety battle is also playing out in the courts, with plaintiffs seeking to hold platform operators liable for harms that occur on their platforms due to the activities of their users. As the Ninth Circuit recently confirmed, however, in at least some cases, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" target="_blank">Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act</a> remains a formidable shield against such claims.On February 18, 2025, the Ninth Circuit, reviewing de novo, <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/02/18/24-475.pdf" target="_blank">affirmed the district court’s dismissal</a> in John Doe v. Grindr (which we <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/central-district-of-california-upholds-grindr-s-immunity-under-section-230-amidst-growing-concerns-over-social-media-safety-for-children" target="_blank">covered last year</a>). The Ninth Circuit panel held that the district court properly dismissed Doe’s state law claims—defective design, defective manufacturing, negligence, failure to warn, and negligent misrepresentation—as well as a federal claim under the civil remedy provision of the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3949" target="_blank">Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act</a> (TVPRA), all on the grounds of Section 230 immunity.<a href="https://www.grindr.com/" target="_blank">Grindr</a> is a popular LGBTQ+ dating app that connects users based on their geolocation. The platform has been at the <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/appeals-court-upholds-section-230-protections-in-case-against-grindr" target="_blank">center of prior Section 230 cases</a>, playing a key role in shaping how courts interpret the statute, which continues to provide immunity for online platforms despite increasing legal and legislative challenges.Citing <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/05-36189/05-36189-2011-02-25.html" target="_blank">Barnes v. Yahoo!</a>, the Ninth Circuit applied the standard three-part test to determine whether Section 230 immunized Grindr from Doe’s state law claims. Under the Barnes test, Section 230 provides protection for: (1) a provider or user of an interactive computer service (2) whom the plaintiff seeks to treat, under a state law cause of action, as a publisher or speaker (3) of information provided by another information content provider.The court held that the first Barnes test prong was undisputed, but prongs two and three required consideration of whether Doe’s theory of liability in each cause of action treated Grindr as a publisher or speaker of third-party content. The court emphasized that Section 230 immunity only applies if the plaintiff’s claims arise from the defendant’s status or conduct as a publisher or speaker.The court determined that each of Doe’s state law claims “necessarily implicates Grindr’s role as a publisher of third-party content.”First, the court examined Doe’s claims for defective design, defective manufacturing, and negligence, which alleged that Grindr facilitated communication among users engaged in illegal activity. While Doe argued that Grindr had a duty to suppress communications between adults and minors to prevent exchanges that could lead to illegal activity, the court noted that these claims “necessarily implicate[d] Grindr’s role as a publisher of third-party content.” As carrying out the alleged duty would require Grindr to monitor third-party communications, the court held that Section 230 immunity applied.Doe’s theory of liability focused on Grindr’s failure to prevent minors from being matched with potential predators, arguing that the app’s use of geographic data to connect users enabled harmful communication. The Ninth Circuit cited <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/18-15175/18-15175-2019-08-20.html" target="_blank">Dyroff v. Ultimate Software</a> (which found that an app’s features, functions, and algorithms that analyze user content and recommend connections “are tools meant to facilitate the communication and content of others”) to affirm that Section 230 barred the similar state law claims in this case. The court emphasized that “neutral features” were intended to facilitate communication and were not “content in and of themselves.”The court further rejected Doe’s attempt to liken his claims to those in <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/04/20-55295.pdf" target="_blank">Lemmon v. Snap</a>, which <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/ninth-circuits-snap-decision-limits-section-230-immunity" target="_blank">we’ve previously covered</a>, where the plaintiff overcame a Section 230 defense by arguing that the claims were based on design defects in the defendant’s platform rather than on publication of user content. The court noted that, in Lemmon, the defendant’s duty to avoid designing a dangerous product was entirely independent of the defendant’s role in monitoring or publishing third-party content, which was not applicable to Doe’s claims in this case.Next, the court analyzed Doe’s duty to warn theory, namely that Grindr had a duty to warn Doe about the risks of child sexual exploitation. The court distinguished <a href="https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-internet-brands-inc" target="_blank">Doe v. Internet Brands</a>, where the plaintiff’s claim faulted the defendant for “failing to warn [plaintiff] about information it obtained from an outside source,” regarding a known conspiracy operating independent from the platform’s publishing function. Here, Doe did not allege that Grindr had independent knowledge of such a conspiracy, and Grindr’s role as a publisher of third-party content does not create a duty to warn users about “a general possibility of harm” from use of the app.The court then considered Doe’s negligent misrepresentation claim, which was based on Grindr’s alleged failure to maintain a “safe and secure environment for its users,” despite asserting through its terms that it would. The court distinguished this case from Barnes and <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/23-55134/23-55134-2024-08-22.html" target="_blank">Estate of Bride v. Yolo Technologies</a> (which we <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/northern-district-applies-section-230-to-ai-assisted-content-moderation" target="_blank">wrote about previously</a>), where plaintiffs sought to hold defendants accountable for specific promises rather than for a failure to take certain moderation actions. Here, Grindr’s general assertion was not a concrete promise but merely a broad description of its moderation policy. Compared to the specific commitments at issue in Barnes and Estate of Bride, the court held that Grindr’s statement was “too general to be enforced.”The court also rejected Doe’s attempt to bring a federal claim under the civil remedy provision of the TVPRA. It found that Doe failed to state a plausible cause of action because the complaint did not adequately allege that Grindr either (i) was a known perpetrator of sex trafficking or (ii) knowingly benefitted from sex trafficking. As a result, plaintiff Doe could not invoke the statutory exception to Section 230 immunity established by the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865" target="_blank">Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act</a> (FOSTA) for certain child sex trafficking claims.To be considered a known perpetrator of sex trafficking, Grindr must either be “a knowing perpetrator of sex trafficking” or “a person that knowingly benefitted from the sex trafficking.” Mere association with sex traffickers is insufficient, the court held, without knowing participation through assistance or facilitation (citing <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1972265.html" target="_blank">Does v. Reddit</a>, which we’ve also <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/ninth-circuit-interprets-fosta-restriction-on-section-230-narrowly" target="_blank">previously covered</a>).The court noted that “turning a blind eye to sex trafficking that may occur on [Grindr] does not constitute active participation in sex trafficking.” Grindr merely “provided a platform that facilitated sharing of messages between users,” and only “matches users who have represented to the App that they are over eighteen years old.” As a result, the court rejected Doe’s claims that Grindr “knowingly introduces children to adults for in-person sexual encounters.”Regarding Doe’s beneficiary theory under the TVPRA, the court held that Doe did not adequately allege that Grindr benefitted from the alleged sex trafficking beyond the general receipt of advertising revenue. The court emphasized that it is not enough to merely “turn a blind eye” to the source of revenue. In other words, the defendant must have both actual knowledge of sex trafficking and a causal relationship between its conduct that furthers sex trafficking and the receipt of a benefit.Section 230 is facing increasing pressure, including <a href="https://chicago.suntimes.com/other-views/2025/02/28/durbin-repeal-section-230-legislation-free-speech-social-media-seth-stern" target="_blank">proposals</a> to repeal the law entirely, but Doe v. Grindr shows that the statute continues to provide online platforms with a potent shield against liability arising from their users’ activities, even in cases involving allegations of harm to minors. The court’s decision makes clear that, at least for now and at least in the Ninth Circuit, merely enabling users to communicate doesn’t make the platform responsible for what those users do offline.

Section 230 Survives the Grindr (Again)

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.