Match Group Users Must Pursue Claims in Arbitration
A judge ruled that users of Tinder and other Match Group-owned dating apps, who accused the companies of deceptively hooking consumers, must pursue their claims through individual arbitrations instead of a federal court class action. U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler in San Francisco granted Match’s request to send the lawsuit to arbitration, citing user agreements that include such provisions. The judge also paused the case, affecting the plaintiffs’ efforts to pursue their claims in court.
Plaintiffs Challenge Match Group’s Business Practices
The ruling dealt a blow to nine plaintiffs from California, New York, Florida, and other states. They alleged that Match and its subsidiaries, including Tinder, Hinge, and The League, intentionally designed their platforms to be addictive, prioritizing profits over users’ relationship goals. The lawsuit accused the company of violating consumer protection laws by employing features that erode users’ ability to disengage, ultimately turning them into paying subscribers.
Ryan Clarkson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, expressed disappointment but affirmed that his clients continue to explore options to hold Match accountable. He criticized the company’s business model, claiming it relies on psychological manipulation to maximize profits. Despite these allegations, Match has consistently denied wrongdoing, asserting that users agreed multiple times to resolve disputes through binding individual arbitration.
Arbitration Provisions and Broader Implications
Judge Beeler ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the unenforceability of the apps’ arbitration clauses. She noted that Match’s terms of service are not illusory, supporting the company’s argument. This decision highlights the growing preference among companies for private arbitration to avoid lengthy and costly court battles, particularly in class actions that could lead to significant damages.
The lawsuit, initially filed in February, also raised broader concerns about tech companies intentionally creating addictive features. Other companies, such as TikTok’s parent ByteDance and Snapchat’s parent Snap, face similar lawsuits accusing them of designing features to addict millions of users, including children.
The case, Oksayan et al v Match Group Inc, is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 24-cv-00888.
