CONTINGENCIES |
3 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Mar. 31, 2025 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 8—CONTINGENCIES In the ordinary course of business, the Company is a party to various lawsuits. The Company establishes reserves for specific legal matters when it determines that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the loss is reasonably estimable. Management has also identified certain other legal matters where we believe an unfavorable outcome is not probable and, therefore, no reserve is established. Although management currently believes that resolving claims against us, including claims where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible, will not have a material impact on the liquidity, results of operations, or financial condition of the Company, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management’s view of these matters may change in the future. The Company also evaluates other contingent matters, including income and non-income tax contingencies, to assess the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and estimated extent of potential loss. It is possible that an unfavorable outcome of one or more of these lawsuits or other contingencies could have a material impact on the liquidity, results of operations, or financial condition of the Company. See “Note 2—Income Taxes” for additional information related to income tax contingencies. 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, Inc. 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. The FTC is seeking up to approximately $257 million in damages and penalties. On September 11, 2023, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The case is set for trial in June 2025. Our consolidated financial statements do not reflect any provision for a loss with respect to this matter, as we do not believe there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss that would be material to our business. We believe we have strong defenses to the FTC’s claims regarding Match.com’s practices, policies, and procedures and will continue to defend vigorously against them. 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. Our consolidated financial statements do not reflect any provision for a loss with respect to this matter, as we do not believe there is a probable likelihood of an unfavorable outcome. However, based on the preliminary draft decision and giving due consideration to the uncertainties inherent in this process, there is at least a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss, which could be anywhere between a nominal amount and $60 million, which we do not believe would be material to our business. We believe we have strong defenses to these claims and will defend vigorously against them. 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 of approximately 270,000 individuals 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. Our consolidated financial statements do not reflect any provision for a loss with respect to this matter. While there is at least a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss, the amount is difficult to predict. If the court were to order restitution to all members of the class, we estimate the amount would be approximately $14 million, which we do not believe would be material to our business. California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act provides for statutory damages of the higher of three times the amount of actual damages or $4,000. Plaintiff has argued that the $4,000 in statutory damages should be incurred for each time a class member was charged a higher price; however, we contend that an exposure to that amount would not be permitted for various reasons, including the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. We believe that we have strong defenses and will continue to defend vigorously against the lawsuit.
|