Match Group, Inc.

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 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. 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. On June 9, 2025, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter, under which we would pay $14 million. The settlement is subject to further approval by the FTC Commissioners and approval by the Court.

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. We filed our response to the preliminary draft decision on 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, and on April 4, 2024, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Chancery Court’s dismissal, except for the Chancery Court’s dismissal of derivative claims, which the Supreme Court affirmed. On March 14, 2025, the parties reached a settlement in principle, subject to documentation and Court approval.

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, 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.

Oksayan Class Action

On February 14, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Match Group, Inc. in the Northern District of California by six plaintiffs from California, New York, Georgia, and Florida. Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that the Tinder, Hinge, and The League apps are designed to be "addictive" in violation of various consumer protection, product liability, negligence, and other laws. Plaintiffs claim that these services’ business models and features addict unsuspecting users, leading to increased depression, loneliness, among other things. Plaintiffs further allege that Tinder, Hinge, and The League failed to warn them of the risks of addiction and that the apps are engaging in fraudulent business practices by marketing their apps in a misleading way. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, as well as injunctive relief (implementing warnings, discontinuing certain marketing campaigns, providing resources). On June 10, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on July 22, 2024, we filed a motion to compel plaintiffs’ claims to arbitration. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 12, 2024, and we filed a motion to compel arbitration on September 18, 2024. On December 10, 2024, the court granted our motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration. We believe that we have strong defenses to the allegations in this lawsuit and will 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. 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, et al., No. 2:25-cv-07171 (Central District of California). We believe that we have strong defenses to the allegations in these lawsuits and will defend vigorously against them.

Netherlands Privacy Class Action

On December 17, 2024, a writ of summons was filed against MTCH Technologies Services Limited, an indirect subsidiary of the Company, and Match Group, Inc. in the District Court of Amsterdam. Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that defendants unlawfully collected, processed, and shared Dutch Tinder users’ personal data without proper consent in violation of GDPR and Dutch consumer protection laws. See Stichting Take Back Your Privacy v. MTCH Technologies Services Limited et al. (Amsterdam). The lawsuit purports to represent a class of Dutch Tinder users from May 25, 2018 until the court’s final judgment and seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. On May 7, 2025, we filed a motion contesting jurisdiction, and the plaintiff filed an opposition on June 18, 2025. We believe that we have strong defenses to the allegations and will defend vigorously against them.