Lawsuit Overview
April 23, 2021 - A second amended complaint was filed.
March 26, 2021 - The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs were given leave to amend the complaint.
June 12, 2020 - A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed.
April 14, 2020 - An amended complaint was filed.
October 3, 2019 - An investor in shares of Match Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTCH) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Match Group, Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between August 6, 2019 and September 25, 2019.
Dallas, TX based Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match Group, Inc. reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from over $1.33 billion in 2017 to over $1.72 billion in 2018 and that its Net Income increased from $350.14 million in 2017 to $477.93 million in 2018.
On September 25, 2019, The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that it had sued Match Group, Inc. for, among other things, using artificial love interest ads to deceive consumers into buying or upgrading subscriptions, failing to resolve disputed charges, and intentionally making it difficult to cancel subscriptions. Shares of Match Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTCH) declined on September 25, 2019 to $66.57 per share.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Match Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTCH) common shares between August 6, 2019 and September 25, 2019 , that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between August 6, 2019 and September 25, 2019, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company used fake love interest ads to convince customers to buy and upgrade subscriptions, that the Company made it difficult and confusing for consumers to cancel their subscriptions, that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny, that the Company lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures, and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis