Does the Communications Decency Act § 230(c)(1) prevent well pleaded causes of action for non-publication torts?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Does the Communications Decency Act § 230(@)(1), which protects interactive computer services from liability for traditional publication torts when they publish third party content, prevent well pleaded causes of action for non-publication torts — such as product liability, negligence, fraud, and failure to warn — as a matter of law? (2) Whether, as the majority of the Federal Appellate Circuit Courts holds, invocation of the Communications Decency Act § 230(@)(1) is an affirmative defense and therefore inappropriate for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage? u PARTIES TO PROCEEDING Petitioner is Matthew Herrick. Respondents are Grindr, LLC, KL Grindr Holdings, Inc., and Grindr Holding Company. RELATED CASES ¢ Matthew Herrick v. Grindr, LLC, et. al., No. 1:17-ev00982, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Order entered on January 25, 2018. ¢ Matthew Herrick v. Grindr, LLC, et. al., No. 18396, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Judgment entered May 9, 2019.