I think Strava partially dodged a bullet here because only the cyclist was killed. Even in SF, it will be difficult to persuade a jury that Strava is more than 10% culpable. But this won't be the last suit (nor should it be) if Strava doesn't change it practices.

Hypothetically, remove bicycles from the equation. Let's say Strava was a website that catered to sport bikes or tuner cars, would everyone still feel so strongly that Strava had no culpability whatsoever for encouraging and promoting illegal street racing? Bicycles can go as fast as motorcycles and cars dowhill, so there really is no difference between them. Strava is encouraging and promoting illegal street racing and if they do not change their practices, another suit will come along where an innocent pedestrian is killed and that will be the end of Strava.

I foresee Strava, either voluntarily or forced via a lawsuit, limiting their timed competitive segments to climbs only. Strava already knows where the climbs are and ranks their difficulty, so this will not be a difficult change for them to make. It also makes it damn near impossible to argue that cyclists competing for times on those climbing segments pose a threat to the general public. Strava can still keep track of all the data for an individual (that's no different than keeping track of one's own PRs), but public posting and competitive segements will be limited to climbs.

You think the Strava effect is bad on the road? It's even worse on the local trails. I wish Strava would ban off-road segemnts altogether. Idiots trying to beat a Strava time are starting to cause conflicts with other trail users in SoCal.