In a pivotal decision for the tech and dating app industries, a U.S. Magistrate Judge has ruled that Tinder and other Match Group-owned platforms must face legal claims related to their allegedly addictive features in private arbitration, rather than in federal court. This ruling, handed down by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler in San Francisco, marks a significant step in the ongoing legal battle over the design and business practices of dating apps.
The plaintiffs, a group of nine individuals from California, New York, Florida, and other states, had accused Match Group of intentionally creating addictive user experiences on popular dating apps like Tinder, Hinge, and The League. They alleged that the company’s business model prioritizes profits over user well-being, leveraging psychological manipulation to keep users engaged on the platforms longer, with the ultimate goal of driving higher subscription purchases.
The lawsuit, filed in February, alleged violations of consumer protection laws and accused Match Group of failing to disclose the addictive nature of its platforms. The plaintiffs argued that the apps employed features that systematically “erode users’ ability to disengage” and turned them into “addicts” with mounting financial obligations. This class action aimed to expose the harmful impacts of the dating apps and hold Match Group accountable for prioritizing revenue over the mental health of its users.
However, in Tuesday’s ruling, Judge Beeler sided with Match Group, granting the company’s request to have the lawsuit sent to arbitration. Citing the arbitration clauses embedded in the user agreements of Tinder and other Match Group platforms, the judge determined that the plaintiffs had agreed to resolve any disputes through individual arbitration, a process which typically prevents class actions and limits potential damages.
“Match Group’s terms of service are not illusory,” Beeler wrote in her ruling, emphasizing that the plaintiffs failed to prove the arbitration provisions were unenforceable.
The ruling is a setback for the plaintiffs, but their lawyer, Ryan Clarkson, expressed a commitment to exploring all available options to hold Match accountable. “Our clients continue to evaluate all options to hold Match accountable for a business model that puts profits over people, with psychological manipulation at its core,” Clarkson stated.
Match Group, which owns several dating platforms including Tinder, Hinge, and Match, declined to comment on the ruling. The company has consistently denied the allegations, asserting that users voluntarily agree to arbitration clauses when they sign up for the apps.
This case is part of a broader trend of legal scrutiny surrounding the tech industry’s role in designing addictive digital experiences. Other high-profile cases include lawsuits against social media giants like TikTok and Snapchat, which also face allegations of fostering addictive behaviors in minors.
The case, Oksayan et al v MatchGroup Inc, is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under case number 24-cv-00888. While this arbitration ruling may close the door on a class action, the legal and public debate about the ethics of user engagement in the tech world is far from over.
Read more: