BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

User cannot put dating app through judicial grinder


The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear about a man’s case against a dating app that allegedly failed to screen a fake profile, sending hundreds of men to his home, the high court decided Monday.

Matthew Herrick petitioned the high court after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York tossed out the suit that alleges the dating app Grindr LLC should be held liable for claims stemming from a fake profile and that the app lacked safety features to prevent fake profiles, and that it doesn’t warn users the app could be used to harass customers, according to Bloomberg Law.

At issue is the extent to which a decades-old website liability law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, shields companies against failure to warn claims, which critics say grants tech companies overly broad immunity from claims that their platforms are causing user harm, according to the news site.

The 2nd Circuit held that this law prevents Mr. Herrick’s product liability and failure to warn claims because they are “inextricably” tied to Grindr’s publishing and editing functions and that this law protects websites from liability for displaying or editing user-posted content, according to the news site.





Read Next

  • Trick or treat, or insurance claim?

    A cornerstone of Halloween — little kids and their parents scampering door to door in search of candy — is a source of hair-raising risk for homeowners, according to a homeowners insurance expert weighing in recently in three risks associated with the holiday.