Company: MTCH
Filing Date: 2025-11-05
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0000891103-25-000180
Chunk: 12

Company: Match Group, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-11-05
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part II, Item 1
Chunk 12
---
9 regarding such conduct and whether such conduct and statements were unfair or deceptive under the FTC Act. On May 26, 2022, the FTC filed a Petition to Enforce Match Civil Investigative Demand, and on June 20, 2025, the Court ordered that the FTC’s Petition be granted in part and denied in part. See FTC v. Match Group, Inc., No. 1:22-mc-00054 (District of Columbia). We believe we have strong defenses to any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend vigorously against them.

Meslage Securities Class Action And Related Derivative Actions

On November 25, 2024, a Match Group stockholder filed a complaint in the Central District of California against Match Group, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer, and its President and Chief Financial Officer seeking to recover unspecified monetary damages on behalf of a putative class of acquirers of Match Group securities between May 2, 2023 and November 6, 2024. See Sébastian Meslage v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No: 2:24-cv-10153-MEMF-PVC (Central District of California). The complaint alleges that Match Group materially understated the challenges affecting its Tinder business and, as a result, understated the risk that Tinder's monthly active user count would not recover by the time the Company reported its financial results for the third fiscal quarter of 2024. On July 24, 2025, the court appointed Evan Weisz as the lead plaintiff. On September 22, 2025, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the Meslage putative class action as to all defendants.

In addition, in December 2024, purported Match Group stockholders filed two derivative complaints in the Central District of California (nominally on behalf of the Company) against certain of Match Group, Inc.’s current and former executive officers and members of its board of directors, alleging violations of the federal securities laws and breach of fiduciary duty stemming from the same or similar purported misrepresentations as the securities class action. See Hollin v. Kim, et al., No. 2:24-CV-10776 (Central District of California), and Roy v Kim, et al., No. 2:24-cv-11007 (Central District of California). In August 2025, a third derivative complaint was filed in the Central District of California alleging similar causes of action. See Habedus v. Kim