*Quick Thoughts are blog posts that are designed to be shorter in length and build off the longer and more researched regular posts or to offer a short commentary to recent news events.*
Participating in the zeitgeist via this blog can be pretty fun sometimes. Why you ask? Because I went on a Hinge date the same day I published, “Can Dating Apps Stop a Pending Crisis?”, and she informed me that Match Group had been sued while I was writing my blog. My jaw dropped. At first I wondered why this information didn’t pop up in my research.[i] But then, I began to wonder exactly how much of the lawsuit brought up what I wrote in the article.
In the main post, I raised the issue of our pending population crisis. This crisis is caused by a multitude of factors including decreasing marriage and birth rates, yielding an older U.S. population demographic who puts a strain on public resources. I then point out three key limitations to why dating apps won’t solve our dating problems and thereby our population problems. First is the limited reach of the apps with only an estimated 9 million paid subscribers across the largest apps. Second is the way apps commodify people and relationships by reducing them to their most superficial and comparable components before shoving a bunch of options at them (I call this the “Optionality Approach” in the main post). Third is how the apps leverage the Optionality Approach to chase growth via monetization, which will become more important as paid user growth slows. These three factors negatively impact the app users’ ability to genuinely cultivate productive and lasting relationships. I then offer private sector, public policy, and behavioral solutions to address the issue.
I will admit, I wondered if there could be a legal case built against dating apps while I was writing the article. Algorithm transparency and false advertising are two topics that I lightly covered, but those two issues are integral to lawsuits under consumer protection and false advertising laws. Like with tobacco and opioids, those cases generally follow a pattern of 1) the product being addictive and harmful, 2) the harm is known to the company and hidden, and 3) there being damages as a result. There’s potential for litigation any time you see this pattern with a consumer product, but not all cases get brought for various reasons. However, I had no clue that someone was already many steps ahead of me.
The case is a class action lawsuit called Oksayan v. Match Group, Inc.[ii] Plaintiffs from California, New York, Georgia, and Florida[iii] have opened a nationwide class[iv] and have alleged that Match Group consumer protection violations, false advertising, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices in addition to other contractual and tort allegations.[v] The plaintiffs have two goals. First, they want Match Group to “change its business practices” to “provide adequate warning” about its product and to advertise more transparently.[vi] The hope is that a change in business practices will promote “informed choice and healthy use” when utilizing the dating apps.[vii] Second, the plaintiffs want to recover monetary damages associated with subscription rates and other fees collected as a result of Match Group’s alleged unfair business practices.[viii]
Much to my delight, a lot of the plaintiffs’ reasoning reflected my own. Keep in mind the complaint is almost 60 pages long. And since this is just a quick thought, we won’t be going line by line. But I will recap some notable similarities. On the first page of the complaint, the plaintiffs assert that “Match intentionally designs the [p]latforms with addictive, game-like design features, which lock users into a perpetual pay-to-play loop that prioritizes corporate profits over its marketing promises and customer’s relationship goals.”[ix] I couldn’t have summed up the dating apps section of my blog any better.
Later in the document, the plaintiffs make an assertion that reflects my point about the Optionality Approach and how the apps commodify people and relationships. “[U]sers are confronted with self-doubt regarding the off-app relationships the [p]latforms are supposedly designed to foster: they are manipulated into feeling dissatisfied with their relationships with other options waiting and being actively “pushed” on the [p]latforms, introducing constant counterfactual thinking. This leaves users asking exactly where [Match] wants and leads them, asking themselves, “what if.”[x] I go further in the blog and assert that this constant “what if” feeling depresses marriages and births, but there’s no need for the plaintiffs to prove that for this suit.
The plaintiffs focus more on the addictive side of dating apps than I did, which is required to make their case. The plaintiffs cite an eHarmony survey stating that 90% of dating app users believe they are addicted.[xi] Additionally, there is a breathtaking admission by a Tinder co-founder revealing they intentionally used B.F. Skinner’s work on intermittent variable rewards to train users to “endlessly swipe”,[xii] seemingly by throwing users a match every once in a while.
I believe the plaintiffs have a great case, but what does this mean for dating app users? In my original post, I asserted that apps can play a role in looking for love and marriage, and I think the plaintiffs would even agree with that assertion. However, we need to be aware of what the apps are doing and plan accordingly to make healthy use of them. And we certainly should not use dating apps as the primary source for meeting people. Time will tell whether this suit goes to trial or settles, but it’s inspiring to see Match Group facing some accountability for relying on a business approach that is so separate from their marketing practices.
[i] Quick answer here, it did hit a couple of major news outlets, but it didn’t receive a ton of coverage because the plaintiffs filed on Valentine’s Day. It will be interesting to see if the suit gains traction and gets more attention. The FTC has also taken action against Match Group in the past.
[ii] Oksayan v. Match Group Inc., Case 3:24-cv-00888 (N.D. Cal. 2024).
[iii] See note ii at pgs. 7-8.
[iv] See note ii at pgs. 32-33.
[v] See note ii at pgs. 35-57.
[vi] See note ii at pg. 6.
[vii] See note ii at pg. 6.
[viii] See note ii at pg. 6.
[ix] See note ii at pg. 1.
[x] See note ii at pg. 28.
[xi] See note ii at pg. 3.
[xii] See note ii at pg. 14.
