Connect with us

Business

Match Group’s rape problem: A lawsuit alleges that inaction by Tinder and Hinge’s owner allowed abusers to stay on the apps

Published

on



When Match Group released its latest earnings this week, its CEO Spencer Rascoff boasted that Hinge, one of its flagship dating apps, was “crushing it,” with growth accelerating despite reports that young users are breaking up with dating apps. Revenue was up 25% compared to the same quarter the prior year, and users had flocked to the site. Previously languishing Tinder was also showing signs of a turnaround. Match’s stock popped 12% that day. 

But the day before that earnings call, a Match Group shareholder named Ned Habedus filed a lawsuit against the company’s board of directors, including Rascoff and former CEO Bernard Kim, that raises questions about the company’s leadership and the board’s priorities in the wake of a bombshell investigation published earlier this year. 

That media report, “Dating App Cover-Up: How Tinder, Hinge, and Their Corporate Owner Keep Rape Under Wraps,” by the Pulitzer Center and Calmatters, co-published by The Guardian and The 19th, grew out of 18 months of reporting and is widely excerpted in the new lawsuit, which was filed in a federal court in central California. 

Quoting the reporting, the lawsuit alleges that “‘Match Group has known… which users have been reported for drugging, assaulting, or raping their dates since at least 2016, according to internal company documents. Since 2019, Match Group’s central database has recorded every user reported for rape and assault across its entire suite of apps; by 2022, the system, known as Sentinel, was collecting hundreds of troubling incidents every week, company insiders say.’”

Match did not respond to Fortune’s request for comment on the new lawsuit. Nor did its former CEO Bernhard Kim. When the investigation was published, the company told the media outlets that it “vigorously combats violence,” according to the report. “We will always work to invest in and improve our systems, and search for ways to help our users stay safe, both online and when they connect in real life,” Match Group said in a statement at the time. It also said: “We take every report of misconduct seriously, and vigilantly remove and block accounts that have violated our rules regarding this behavior.”

However, Match Group has not yet produced a promised report that would give all stakeholders, including customers, a clear sense of the risks facing users. And some accused offenders found ways to stay on the site, allowing them to continue trawling the websites for potential targets—sometimes for months or years—even after their crimes had been reported to Match.

The complaint also claims, again citing the investigative report, “In one particularly outrageous example… cardiologist Stephen Matthews retained access to Match’s platforms as late as January 25, 2023, despite a user reporting him for sexual assault on September 28, 2020. Match only removed his profile after he was arrested by law enforcement.” In 2024, Matthews was convicted by a Colorado court of drugging 10 women he met through dating apps Hinge and Tinder, and sexually assaulting eight of them. He was sentenced to serve 158 years in prison.

An attorney for the plaintiff declined to comment and pointed Fortune to the complaint. 

Match Group, a $8.8 billion company, owns more than a dozen apps, including Tinder, Hinge, Match, Meetic, OkCupid, and Plenty Of Fish. The lawsuit seeks damages from the executives and board members named for breaches of fiduciary duty, securities law violations, and unjust enrichment. It also calls for reforms to corporate governance and risk oversight, restitution of executive pay, and other costs incurred by the company. 

It is a derivative lawsuit, in which a shareholder brings claims against leadership on behalf of the company. Any payments ordered by the court go to the company, and shareholders benefit indirectly. (Typically, directors have insurance policies that will cover such payments. If the misconduct is not covered by the policies, however, board members are obliged to cover the costs themselves.) 

The Pulitzer Center report opens with a harrowing and detailed account from one of Matthews’ victims, who says that when she visited Matthews at his home, he drugged and assaulted her. She was able to escape and get into an Uber, and after the effects of the drug had worn off, she reported the incident to Match. At the time of that assault, two other women had already reported Matthews to the site, according to the report. 

In several cases, the lawsuit compares what the company disclosed in securities filings and during analyst calls with what the Pulitzer Center’s report alleged that the company already knew. For example, the legal filing states that the company revealed falling monthly active user figures for Tinder in November 2024 without disclosing what the plaintiff alleges was the real reason the app was losing customers: the long-running safety issues outlined in the exposé published a few months later. 

“Competition or economic considerations did not cause the rapid decline in Tinder’s MAU,” the complaint says. “It faltered because users had grown tired of meeting abusers and predators on the platform.”

“Users also were frustrated by the Company’s failure to curtail this nefarious conduct,”  it continues, “which was known to the Company’s leadership.”

Introducing the 2025 Fortune Global 500, the definitive ranking of the biggest companies in the world. Explore this year’s list.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Epstein grand jury documents from Florida can be released by DOJ, judge rules

Published

on



A federal judge on Friday gave the Justice Department permission to release transcripts of a grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of underage girls in Florida — a case that ultimately ended without any federal charges being filed against the millionaire sex offender.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith said a recently passed federal law ordering the release of records related to Epstein overrode the usual rules about grand jury secrecy.

The law signed in November by President Donald Trump compels the Justice Department, FBI and federal prosecutors to release later this month the vast troves of material they have amassed during investigations into Epstein that date back at least two decades.

Friday’s court ruling dealt with the earliest known federal inquiry.

In 2005, police in Palm Beach, Florida, where Epstein had a mansion, began interviewing teenage girls who told of being hired to give the financier sexualized massages. The FBI later joined the investigation.

Federal prosecutors in Florida prepared an indictment in 2007, but Epstein’s lawyers attacked the credibility of his accusers publicly while secretly negotiating a plea bargain that would let him avoid serious jail time.

In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to relatively minor state charges of soliciting prostitution from someone under age 18. He served most of his 18-month sentence in a work release program that let him spend his days in his office.

The U.S. attorney in Miami at the time, Alex Acosta, agreed not to prosecute Epstein on federal charges — a decision that outraged Epstein’s accusers. After the Miami Herald reexamined the unusual plea bargain in a series of stories in 2018, public outrage over Epstein’s light sentence led to Acosta’s resignation as Trump’s labor secretary.

A Justice Department report in 2020 found that Acosta exercised “poor judgment” in handling the investigation, but it also said he did not engage in professional misconduct.

A different federal prosecutor, in New York, brought a sex trafficking indictment against Epstein in 2019, mirroring some of the same allegations involving underage girls that had been the subject of the aborted investigation. Epstein killed himself while awaiting trial. His longtime confidant and ex-girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, was then tried on similar charges, convicted and sentenced in 2022 to 20 years in prison.

Transcripts of the grand jury proceedings from the aborted federal case in Florida could shed more light on federal prosecutors’ decision not to go forward with it. Records related to state grand jury proceedings have already been made public.

When the documents will be released is unknown. The Justice Department asked the court to unseal them so they could be released with other records required to be disclosed under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The Justice Department hasn’t set a timetable for when it plans to start releasing information, but the law set a deadline of Dec. 19.

The law also allows the Justice Department to withhold files that it says could jeopardize an active federal investigation. Files can also be withheld if they’re found to be classified or if they pertain to national defense or foreign policy.

One of the federal prosecutors on the Florida case did not answer a phone call Friday and the other declined to answer questions.

A judge had previously declined to release the grand jury records, citing the usual rules about grand jury secrecy, but Smith said the new federal law allowed public disclosure.

The Justice Department has separate requests pending for the release of grand jury records related to the sex trafficking cases against Epstein and Maxwell in New York. The judges in those matters have said they plan to rule expeditiously.

___

Sisak reported from New York.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Miss Universe co-owner gets bank accounts frozen as part of probe into drugs, fuel and arms trafficking

Published

on



Mexico’s anti-money laundering office has frozen the bank accounts of the Mexican co-owner of Miss Universe as part of an investigation into drugs, fuel and arms trafficking, an official said Friday.

The country’s Financial Intelligence Unit, which oversees the fight against money laundering, froze Mexican businessman Raúl Rocha Cantú’s bank accounts in Mexico, a federal official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the investigation.

The action against Rocha Cantú adds to mounting controversies for the Miss Universe organization. Last week, a court in Thailand issued an arrest warrant for the Thai co-owner of the Miss Universe Organization in connection with a fraud case and this year’s competition — won by Miss Mexico Fatima Bosch — faced allegations of rigging.

The Miss Universe organization did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press seeking comment about the allegations against Rocha Cantú.

Mexico’s federal prosecutors said last week that Rocha Cantú has been under investigation since November 2024 for alleged organized crime activity, including drug and arms trafficking, as well as fuel theft. Last month, a federal judge issued 13 arrest warrants for some of those involved in the case, including the Mexican businessman, whose company Legacy Holding Group USA owns 50% of the Miss Universe shares.

The organization’s other 50% belongs to JKN Global Group Public Co. Ltd., a company owned by Jakkaphong “Anne” Jakrajutatip.

A Thai court last week issued an arrest warrant for Jakrajutatip who was released on bail in 2023 on the fraud case. She failed to appear as required in a Bangkok court on Nov. 25. Since she did not notify the court about her absence, she was deemed to be a flight risk, according to a statement from the Bangkok South District Court.

The court rescheduled her hearing for Dec. 26.

Rocha Cantú was also a part owner of the Casino Royale in the northern Mexican city of Monterrey, when it was attacked in 2011 by a group of gunmen who entered it, doused gasoline and set it on fire, killing 52 people.

Baltazar Saucedo Estrada, who was charged with planning the attack, was sentenced in July to 135 years in prison.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk’s X fined $140 million by EU for breaching digital regulations

Published

on



European Union regulators on Friday fined X, Elon Musk’s social media platform, 120 million euros ($140 million) for breaches of the bloc’s digital regulations, in a move that risks rekindling tensions with Washington over free speech.

The European Commission issued its decision following an investigation it opened two years ago into X under the 27-nation bloc’s Digital Services Act, also known as the DSA.

It’s the first time that the EU has issued a so-called non-compliance decision since rolling out the DSA. The sweeping rulebook requires platforms to take more responsibility for protecting European users and cleaning up harmful or illegal content and products on their sites, under threat of hefty fines.

The Commission, the bloc’s executive arm, said it was punishing X because of three different breaches of the DSA’s transparency requirements. The decision could rile President Donald Trump, whose administration has lashed out at digital regulations, complained that Brussels was targeting U.S. tech companies and vowed to retaliate.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted on his X account that the Commission’s fine was akin to an attack on the American people. Musk later agreed with Rubio’s sentiment.

“The European Commission’s $140 million fine isn’t just an attack on @X, it’s an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments,” Rubio wrote. “The days of censoring Americans online are over.”

Vice President JD Vance, posting on X ahead of the decision, accused the Commission of seeking to fine X “for not engaging in censorship.”

“The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage,” he wrote.

Officials denied the rules were intended to muzzle Big Tech companies. The Commission is “not targeting anyone, not targeting any company, not targeting any jurisdictions based on their color or their country of origin,” spokesman Thomas Regnier told a regular briefing in Brussels. “Absolutely not. This is based on a process, democratic process.”

X did not respond immediately to an email request for comment.

EU regulators had already outlined their accusations in mid-2024 when they released preliminary findings of their investigation into X.

Regulators said X’s blue checkmarks broke the rules because on “deceptive design practices” and could expose users to scams and manipulation.

Before Musk acquired X, when it was previously known as Twitter, the checkmarks mirrored verification badges common on social media and were largely reserved for celebrities, politicians and other influential accounts, such as Beyonce, Pope Francis, writer Neil Gaiman and rapper Lil Nas X.

After he bought it in 2022, the site started issuing the badges to anyone who wanted to pay $8 per month.

That means X does not meaningfully verify who’s behind the account, “making it difficult for users to judge the authenticity of accounts and content they engage with,” the Commission said in its announcement.

X also fell short of the transparency requirements for its ad database, regulators said.

Platforms in the EU are required to provide a database of all the digital advertisements they have carried, with details such as who paid for them and the intended audience, to help researches detect scams, fake ads and coordinated influence campaigns. But X’s database, the Commission said, is undermined by design features and access barriers such as “excessive delays in processing.”

Regulators also said X also puts up “unnecessary barriers” for researchers trying to access public data, which stymies research into systemic risks that European users face.

“Deceiving users with blue checkmarks, obscuring information on ads and shutting out researchers have no place online in the EU. The DSA protects users,” Henna Virkkunen, the EU’s executive vice-president for tech sovereignty, security and democracy, said in a prepared statement.

The Commission also wrapped up a separate DSA case Friday involving TikTok’s ad database after the video-sharing platform promised to make changes to ensure full transparency.

___

AP Writer Lorne Cook in Brussels contributed to this report.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.