Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Overview
We are, and from time to time may become, involved in various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of our business activities, such as trademark and patent infringement claims, trademark oppositions, and consumer or advertising complaints, as well as stockholder derivative actions, class action lawsuits, mass arbitrations, and other matters. The amounts that may be recovered in such matters may be subject to insurance coverage. The litigation matters described below involve issues or claims that may be of particular interest to our stockholders, regardless of whether any of these matters may be material to our financial position or operations based upon the standard set forth in the SEC’s rules.
Pursuant to the Transaction Agreement, entered into in connection with our separation from IAC/InterActiveCorp, now known as IAC Inc. (“IAC”), we have agreed to indemnify IAC for matters relating to any business of Former Match Group, including indemnifying IAC for costs related to the matters described 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 age 30 and over a higher price than younger users for subscriptions to its premium Tinder Plus service. The complaint seeks certification of a class of California Tinder Plus subscribers age 30 and over and damages in an unspecified amount.
In a related development, on June 21, 2019, in a substantially similar putative class action asserting the same substantive claims and pending in federal district court in California, the court entered judgment granting final approval of a class-wide settlement, the terms of which were not material to the Company. See Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc. , No. 18-cv-3093 (Central District of California). Because the approved settlement class in Kim subsumed the proposed settlement class in Candelore , the judgment in Kim effectively rendered Candelore a single-plaintiff lawsuit. On March 4, 2022, the trial court granted final approval of the settlement agreement, the terms of which were not material to the Company. On March 31, 2022, two objectors to the Kim settlement, represented by the plaintiff’s counsel in Candelore , filed a notice of appeal from the Kim judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On June 27, 2022, the trial court issued an order staying the class claims in Candelore pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision on the Kim appeal. On December 5, 2023, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion reversing the Kim settlement. On January 2, 2024, the mandate of the decision was issued. The only remaining claim in the Kim case is Kim’s individual claim. In Candelore , the stay was lifted. 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 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
29
Table of Contents
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. On March 24, 2022, the court granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice on Claims I and II of the complaint relating to communication notifications and granted our motion to dismiss with respect to all requests for monetary damages on Claims III and IV relating to the guarantee offer and chargeback policy. On July 19, 2022, the FTC filed an amended complaint adding Match Group, LLC as a defendant. On September 11, 2023, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. We believe we have strong defenses to the FTC’s claims regarding Match.com’s practices, policies, and procedures and will continue to defend vigorously against them.
Irish Data Protection Commission Inquiry Regarding Tinder’s Practices
On February 3, 2020, we received a letter from the Irish Data Protection Commission (the “DPC”) notifying us that the DPC had commenced an inquiry examining Tinder’s compliance with the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), focusing on Tinder’s processes for handling access and deletion requests and Tinder’s user data retention policies. On January 8, 2024, the DPC provided us with a preliminary draft decision alleging that certain of Tinder’s access and retention policies, largely relating to protecting the safety and privacy of Tinder’s users, violate GDPR requirements. Our response to the preliminary draft decision is due by March 15, 2024. We believe we have strong defenses to these claims and will defend vigorously against them.
Newman Derivative and Stockholder Class Action Regarding Separation Transaction
On June 24, 2020, a Former Match Group shareholder filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Former Match Group and its board of directors, as well as Match Group, IAC Holdings, Inc., and Barry Diller seeking to recover unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the Company and directly as a result of his ownership of Former Match Group stock in relation to the separation of Former Match Group from its former majority shareholder, Match Group. See David Newman et al. v. IAC/Interactive Corp. et al. , C.A. No. 2020-0505-MTZ (Delaware Court of Chancery). The complaint alleges that that the special committee established by Former Match Group’s board of directors to negotiate with Match Group regarding the separation transaction was not sufficiently independent of control from Match Group and Mr. Diller and that Former Match Group board members failed to adequately protect Former Match Group’s interest in negotiating the separation transaction, which resulted in a transaction that was unfair to Former Match Group and its shareholders. On January 21, 2021, the case was consolidated with other shareholder actions, and an amended complaint was filed on April 14, 2021. See In Re Match Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation , Consolidated C.A. No. 2020-0505-MTZ (Delaware Court of Chancery). On September 1, 2022, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. On October 3, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended notice of appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court. We believe we have strong defenses to the allegations in this lawsuit and the appeal and will defend vigorously against them.
FTC Investigation of Certain Subsidiary Data Privacy Representations
On March 19, 2020, the FTC issued an initial Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) to the Company requiring us to produce certain documents and information regarding the allegedly wrongful conduct of OkCupid in 2014 and our public statements in 2019 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. See FTC v. Match Group, Inc. , No. 1:22-mc-00054 (District of Columbia). We believe we have strong defenses to the FTC's investigation and petition to enforce and will defend vigorously against them.
Bardaji Securities Class Action
On March 6, 2023, a Match Group shareholder filed a complaint in federal district court in Delaware against Match Group, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its President and Chief Financial Officer seeking to recover unspecified monetary damages on behalf of a class of acquirers of Match Group securities between November 3, 2021 and January 31, 2023. See Leopold Riola Bardaji v. Match Group, Inc. et al , No. 1:23-cv-00245-UNA (District of Delaware). The complaint alleges that Match Group, Inc. misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that its Tinder business was not effectively executing on its new product initiatives; as a result, Tinder was not on track to deliver its planned product initiatives in 2022; and therefore, Match Group, Inc.’s statements about its Tinder’s business, product initiatives, operations, and
30
Table of Contents
prospects lacked a reasonable basis. On July 24, 2023, lead plaintiff Northern California Pipe Trades Trust Funds filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint added allegations regarding misrepresentations relating to Match Group's acquisition of Hyperconnect and the business' subsequent integration and performance. On September 20, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. We believe that we have strong defenses to the allegations in this lawsuit and will defend vigorously against them.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosure
Not applicable.
31
Table of Contents
PART II