Hinge and its parent company Match Group are defendants in several active lawsuits and federal enforcement actions. The Hinge lawsuit landscape includes a class action alleging the app is engineered to be addictive, a civil suit by six sexual assault survivors in Colorado, two Federal Trade Commission actions over deceptive billing and privacy violations, and biometric privacy claims moving through mass arbitration. Here is what each case alleges and where it stands.
The Addiction Class Action
On Valentine’s Day 2024, six users filed a class action against Match Group in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case, Oksayan v. Match Group, Inc. (No. 3:24-cv-00888), targets Tinder, Hinge, and The League and names plaintiffs from California, Georgia, Florida, and New York.1ClassAction.org. Oksayan et al. v. MatchGroup Inc.
The complaint argues that Match Group designed its apps to function more like slot machines than matchmaking services. Daily swipe limits, push notifications, and algorithmically timed rewards, the plaintiffs say, manipulate dopamine responses to keep users locked in compulsive use. The suit calls these “dopamine-manipulating product features” and compares them to gambling mechanics that turn users into “gamblers locked in a search for psychological rewards.”2The Guardian. Are Dating Apps Fuelling Addiction? Lawsuit Against Tinder, Hinge, and Match Claims So
Hinge’s slogan, “Designed to be Deleted,” gets particular attention. The complaint alleges the opposite is true: the platform is built to prevent disengagement and funnel users toward expensive subscription tiers through artificial bottlenecks and strategic notifications. Plaintiffs claim Match Group has a “perverse incentive” to withhold successful matches, because a user who finds a lasting relationship stops paying.3Jacobin. Dating Apps Match Group Lawsuit The complaint includes eleven causes of action under consumer protection statutes in four states, plus breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, strict products liability, and negligence.1ClassAction.org. Oksayan et al. v. MatchGroup Inc.
Match Group called the lawsuit “ridiculous” and said it has “zero merit.”2The Guardian. Are Dating Apps Fuelling Addiction? Lawsuit Against Tinder, Hinge, and Match Claims So In April 2024, the company moved to compel arbitration, arguing that users had agreed to terms of service requiring individual arbitration.4Bloomberg Law. Match Group Wants to Arbitrate Tinder, Hinge Addiction Lawsuit A federal judge granted the motion, and the case is stayed while arbitration proceeds.5Top Class Actions. Tinder Hinge Class Action Claims Apps Are Purposely Addictive
The Sexual Assault Survivors’ Lawsuit
In December 2025, six women who were drugged and sexually assaulted by Denver cardiologist Stephen Matthews filed a civil lawsuit against Match Group and Matthews in Denver County District Court. The women, proceeding as Jane Does, allege that Match Group allowed Matthews to operate as a predator on Hinge and Tinder for years despite direct reports that he was raping users.6People. Sexual Assault Survivors Sue Hinge, Tinder Parent Company
Matthews was convicted in 2024 on 35 counts involving the drugging and sexual assault of multiple women he met through dating apps, and sentenced to 158 years in prison. Five of the six plaintiffs met him on Hinge; one on Tinder.7ABC7 Chicago. Women Were Drugged, Raped by Colorado Cardiologist Stephen Matthews, Filing Lawsuit Against Hinge Dating App
What Hinge Was Told, and When
The complaint lays out a timeline of reports that produced no lasting action. A victim reported on September 29, 2020, that Matthews had drugged and raped her. Hinge replied it was taking “immediate steps.” On January 30, 2021, the same victim reported she had been matched with Matthews again. Hinge told her his account had been “permanently banned.” As late as 2023, Matthews was still active on the app using the same name, photos, and phone number.7ABC7 Chicago. Women Were Drugged, Raped by Colorado Cardiologist Stephen Matthews, Filing Lawsuit Against Hinge Dating App In at least one instance, Hinge reportedly recommended his profile to a woman who had already reported him for sexual assault.6People. Sexual Assault Survivors Sue Hinge, Tinder Parent Company
Design Choices the Plaintiffs Call Defective
The plaintiffs frame the case as product liability, not just moderation failure. One specific target is the “unmatch” feature: when a bad actor unmatches, the victim’s conversation history disappears and with it her ability to report that person.8The 19th. Dating App Rape Survivors Lawsuit Hinge Tinder The complaint also alleges the platforms failed to warn users about the risk of sexual assault and that recommendation algorithms promoted known predators to new potential victims.9C.A. Goldberg Law. Lawsuit Against Match Group for Drugging and Sexual Assault Filed in CO
The claims include product liability for defective design and failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, sexual battery, violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, and trafficking.9C.A. Goldberg Law. Lawsuit Against Match Group for Drugging and Sexual Assault Filed in CO Match Group said “safety is foundational to the trust our users place in us” and pointed to its “comprehensive suite of safety tools.”6People. Sexual Assault Survivors Sue Hinge, Tinder Parent Company
The Reporting Behind the Complaint
The Denver lawsuit draws on an 18-month investigation called the Dating Apps Reporting Project, a collaboration between The Markup (now part of CalMatters) and the Pulitzer Center’s AI Accountability Network.10Pulitzer Center. Rape Survivors Lawsuit Against Dating App Giant Cites Pulitzer Center Supported Investigation Reporters created more than 50 test accounts across Tinder, Hinge, OkCupid, and Plenty of Fish between April 2024 and February 2025 and found that users banned for sexual assault could easily rejoin using the same name, birthday, and profile photos. Internal documents showed Match Group’s central safety database, Sentinel, had been collecting hundreds of troubling incident reports weekly since at least 2022, and that the company was not automatically using basic identifiers like IP addresses, photos, and birthdates to block banned users from resurfacing on other apps in its portfolio.11The Markup. Dating App Cover-Up: How Tinder, Hinge, and Their Corporate Owner Keep Rape Under Wraps
Shareholder Litigation
The safety revelations triggered a shareholder derivative action. On August 4, 2025, investor Ned Habedus filed suit (No. 2:25-cv-07171) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Match Group’s board and leadership breached fiduciary duties by misrepresenting how they handled safety issues and by misleading shareholders about the reasons for declining user numbers. The suit named former CEO Bernard Kim and former president Gary Swidler.12Fortune. Match Group Tinder Hinge Lawsuit Rape Assault Sentinel Habedus voluntarily dropped the case on September 4, 2025, though Bloomberg Law reported that other derivative actions remained pending.13Bloomberg Law. Match Group Investor Drops Leadership Suit With Others Pending
FTC Enforcement Actions
Deceptive Billing Settlement
In August 2025, Match Group agreed to pay $14 million to settle charges originally brought by the FTC in a 2019 complaint. The agency alleged that Match.com lured consumers into paid subscriptions using messages from accounts the company had already flagged as likely fraudulent, made misleading “free six-month subscription” guarantees with undisclosed qualifying requirements, and created obstacles for users trying to cancel. Under the settlement, filed in the Northern District of Texas, Match Group is permanently barred from the challenged practices and must provide clear cancellation mechanisms.14Federal Trade Commission. Match Group Agrees to Pay $14 Million, Permanently Stop Deceptive Advertising, Cancellation, Billing
OkCupid Data Sharing
On March 30, 2026, the FTC took action against Match Group Americas and Humor Rainbow, Inc. (which operates OkCupid) for sharing photos, location data, and other personal information of nearly three million users with Clarifai, an AI company that had no business relationship with OkCupid. The sharing occurred because OkCupid’s founders were investors in Clarifai. The FTC alleged the companies concealed the data sharing from 2014 onward and tried to obstruct the agency’s investigation. A proposed 20-year consent order bars the companies from misrepresenting their data practices and privacy controls.15Federal Trade Commission. FTC Takes Action Against Match, OkCupid Deceiving Users Sharing Personal Data Third Party
Biometric Privacy Claims
Match Group also faces claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. A proposed class action, Randle v. Match Group, Inc. (No. 1:22-cv-06632), filed in November 2022, alleges that Tinder’s photo verification process captures users’ facial geometry through 3D face authentication without the written consent or retention disclosures Illinois law requires.16ClassAction.org. Tinder Hit With Biometric Data Privacy Class Action in Illinois Over User Facial Scans A separate case, Baker v. Match Group, was dismissed in October 2024 after a Texas federal judge ruled the apps’ terms of use required Texas law, which does not provide a private right of action for biometric violations.17Bloomberg Law. Tinder, OKCupid Biometric Privacy Case Dismissed by Texas Judge As of early 2026, the broader biometric claims involving Hinge, OkCupid, and Tinder are proceeding through mass arbitration rather than class action, because the terms of service require individual dispute resolution.18ClassAction.org. Hinge, OkCupid, Tinder Privacy Lawsuits
What Could Decide These Cases
A central question hanging over the sexual assault suit is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields platforms from liability for content posted by users. The Denver plaintiffs try to sidestep it by framing their claims as product-design defects rather than moderation failures.10Pulitzer Center. Rape Survivors Lawsuit Against Dating App Giant Cites Pulitzer Center Supported Investigation A related case, Doe v. Grindr, is testing that boundary in the Ninth Circuit.19EPIC. Doe v. Grindr
State law is also moving. Colorado passed the Online Dating Services Safety Act (SB24-011) in June 2024, requiring dating apps to maintain public safety policies, conduct background screening, notify users who have interacted with someone who committed prohibited conduct, and file annual safety reports with the state attorney general. The first report was due January 31, 2026.20Colorado General Assembly. SB24-011: Online-Facilitated Misconduct and Remote Tracking