Company: MTCH
Filing Date: 2025-05-08
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0000891103-25-000076
Chunk: 2

Company: Match Group, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-05-08
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 4
Chunk 2
---
 below other than the matter described under the heading “Newman Derivative and Stockholder Class Action Regarding Separation Transaction”.

The official names of legal proceedings in the descriptions below (shown in italics) reflect the original names of the parties when the proceedings were filed as opposed to the current names of the parties following the separation of Match Group and IAC.

Consumer Class Action Litigation Challenging Tinder’s Age-Tiered Pricing

On May 28, 2015, a putative state-wide class action was filed against Tinder in state court in California. See Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles). The complaint principally alleges that Tinder violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act by offering and charging users over a certain age a higher price than younger users for subscriptions to its premium Tinder Plus service. Plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On July 15, 2024, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to certify a class based upon California Tinder Plus and Tinder Gold subscribers age 29 and over. On January 17, 2025, the court denied our motion to compel the class and the plaintiff to arbitration. We filed a Notice of Appeal on January 24, 2025, and on April 18, 2025, the court stayed the case pending our appeal. We believe that we have strong defenses to the allegations in the Candelore lawsuit and will continue to defend vigorously against it.

FTC Lawsuit Against Former Match Group

On September 25, 2019, the United States Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Texas against the company formerly known as Match Group (“Former Match Group”). See FTC v. Match Group, Inc., No. 3:19:cv-02281-K (Northern District of Texas). The complaint alleges that, prior to mid-2018, for marketing purposes Match.com notified non-paying users that other users were attempting to communicate with them, even though Match.com had identified those subscriber accounts as potentially fraudulent, thereby inducing non-paying users to subscribe and exposing them to the risk of fraud should they subscribe. The complaint also challenges the adequacy of Match.com’s disclosure of the terms of its six-month guarantee, the efficacy of its cancellation process, and its handling of chargeback disputes. The complaint seeks, among other things, permanent injunctive relief, civil penalties, restitution, disgorgement, and costs of suit.