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.

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, and the DPC issued its draft decision on

July 9, 2026. On October 13, 2026, the DPC issued its final decision, imposing an €11 million fine. We

believe we have strong defenses to these claims and intend to appeal.

Securities Derivative Actions

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 allegations 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. 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). On September 9, 2025,

the court dismissed the Habedus derivative action with prejudice as to all defendants. On April 16,

2026, the court in the Roy derivative action granted the plaintiff's request to voluntarily dismiss the case

without prejudice. As to the remaining derivative action, we believe that we have strong defenses to the

allegations 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.

On May 20, 2026, the court confirmed jurisdiction over the non-GDPR claims but has not yet decided

on jurisdiction over the GDPR claims. The court is considering staying the entire case, and we are

awaiting a decision on that issue. We believe that we have strong defenses to the allegations and will

defend vigorously against them.