Lawsuit Information Center
On this page, our national sex abuse lawyers will discuss lawsuits against dating app companies for negligently failing to protect users from sexual assault or abuse. These dating app sex abuse lawsuits are getting filed across the country in large numbers and they assert that dating apps like Tinder, Hinge, OkCupid and others have negligently failed to screen potentially dangerous users.
Dating Apps
These days dating apps are the primary way that single people meet each other and start relationships. Research has shown that more relationships originate from dating apps now than from traditional venues like bars, church, school, etc. That means that literally millions of people and finding and meeting each other through dating apps.
The market leader in the dating app industry is a company called Match Group. Match Group owns nearly all of the top dating apps including Tinder, Hinge, OkCupid, and Plenty of Fish (despite the name similarity they don’t own Match.com). Match Group’s apps are available in almost every country on the planet and they rake in $8 billion a year in revenue.
The Inherent Danger of Dating Apps
The end goal or objective when using any dating app is ultimately to meet someone in person. Although you may have exchanged 200 witting, flirtatious and personally insightful messages with that person before meeting them, the reality is that you are going to meet a stranger.
Given that objective, there is an inherent and almost unavoidable degree of risk involved in using dating apps to meet people in person. That risk is the chance that the seemingly charming person you matched with on the app is actually a sexual predator.
Dating App Companies Have a Legal Duty To Protect Users
In the U.S., all companies that make products or provide services have a legal duty to ensure that those products or services are reasonably safe and won’t hurt consumers. This legal duty applies to dating app companies just the same as it does to car manufacturers. So companies like Match Group are legally obligated to take reasonable steps to protect the safety of their users from any known risks or dangers related to their apps.
The risk of meeting a violent rapist on Tinder is clearly a known risk, which means that Match Group has to take reasonable steps to address that risk and protect users as much as possible. So what exactly does that require? At a minimum, it probably requires Match Group and other companies to provide adequate warnings to users about the potential risk of sexual assault when meeting people through the app.
Most dating apps already cover this basis with fine print or disclosure clauses in their membership agreements. Obviously nobody pays any attention to those. But the duty to protect users in the dating app context arguably requires much more than just a fine print warning about the possibility of getting raped on a date.
Dating Apps Have a Legal Duty To Screen and Monitor Users
Dating app companies like Match Group probably have a legal duty to take reasonable steps to screen users for potential signs of sexual deviancy and monitor users for complaints about inappropriate behavior on dates.
Pre-screening could include better identity verification and possibly even some type of background trace to make sure the would be user is no a registered sex offender.
Monitoring users for complaints about aggressive or questionable behaivor on dates with out users is the primary method that dating apps can protect their clients. If a user meets someone through the app and that person does something inappropriate or assaults them on their date, that misbehavior can be reported to the dating app. The dating app can then terminate that users account so that they can no longer use app. This is a critically important step that could protect a future user from being sexually assaulted on a date.
Match Group Has Negligently Failed to Protect Users
There is a growing body of evidence and investigative reports indicating that Match Group is often very negligent in its efforts to protect and safeguard users from sexual predators. Although Match Group’s apps all have systems and procedures created that are designed to identify sexual predators and protect users, the company apparently does a very poor job of actually utilizing and implementing these features.
Match Group collects data on sexual violence complaints against its users and it even developed an internal system called Sentinel to help track reports of sexual assault across all of its various dating app platforms. It’s basically like INTERPOL for dating apps.
The problems is that Match Group neglects to take appropriate action on this information. The result is that users who have been reported to Match Group for sexual assault, inappropriate conduct, or even full on rape during a date are often not even terminated from the dating app. Instead, these known offenders are allowed to continue using the app to find new potential victims.
Sex Abuse Negligence Lawsuits Against Match Group
Match Group’s negligent security efforts put its users at risk on a regular basis. In cases where a dating app user is sexually assaulted or abused by another user they met through the dating app, they may be able to file a negligence lawsuit against Match Group and get financial compensation.
To bring a successful lawsuit against Match Group for dating app security negligence, the victim would need to show Match Group had some sort of prior knowledge about red flags or prior reports of abuse or misconduct by the user who committed the assault. Sometime you might not find that out until after you contact a lawyer, so even if you don’t know its worth looking into.
If the dating app user who sexually assaulted you was previously reported to Match Group for inappropriate conduct, or had any sort of red flags (e.g., criminal records, sex offender registry) you can bring a valid negligence case against Match Group. The theory would be that Match Group was negligent in allowing that user to remain active on the dating app even after being made aware of their prior bad conduct.
Who May Be Eligible to File a Dating App Sex Abuse Lawsuit?
Individuals who might be able to bring a dating app sex abuse negligence lawsuit would be those who meet the following basic criteria:
- You went on a date with a person you met on a dating app and that person sexually assaulted, abused or raped you.
- The user who committed the assault or abuse had prior complaints or reports of misconduct submitted to the dating app, but their account was not terminated.
- You suffered physical and emotional damage as a result of the sexual assault.
Do You Have to Report the Incident to the Police to File a Lawsuit?
No. Reporting the sexual assault or abuse to the police or pressing criminal charges against the abuser is NOT a necessary precondition to filing a civil lawsuit against Match Group. You can file a lawsuit even if you never told anyone at all about the incident.
Settlement Payouts in Dating App Sex Abuse Lawsuits
It is exceedingly difficult to say with any real certainty what the settlement payout value of dating app sex abuse case might be. These claims are very new and none of the cases have gone to trial, or even resulted in a publicly reported settlement yet. We can offer estimated settlement values based on various assumptions about how these cases will play out, and settlements in prior cases.
Most dating app sex abuse cases that result in settlements will probably be very serious cases involving significant sexual assaults by a user who had been repeatedly reported to the app for misconduct. These cases will have a high value because the damages are significant and the negligence is egregious. The 2 key factors in determining the value of these cases will be the severity of the sexual assault, and the level of knowledge that the dating app had about the perpetrator.
Platform Knowledge and Reporting
The settlement value in dating app assault cases largely depends on what the app knew about the offender and when or how that information was reported. For instance, if a user like Joe commits sexual assault or rape after arranging a date through Tinder, and Tinder (Match Group) had previously received four complaints accusing Joe of similar offenses but failed to take action, the potential settlement value for the victim, Jane, would increase significantly.
By contrast, let’s say Tinder had only received a single complaint saying Joe gave someone the creeps, with not specific allegations of sexual assault. In that scenario establishing negligence on the part of the dating app would be much more difficult. This would give the defense leverage to push the s leading to a substantially lower settlement value.
Severity of the Assault
The extent of the assault also plays a major role in determining compensation. Cases involving violent rape or sodomy tend to result in higher settlements, while incidents of unwanted but less severe contact, such as groping, typically yield lower payouts.
Estimated Settlement Ranges
- High-End Cases: Severe assaults (e.g., violent rape) with strong evidence of prior complaints can lead to settlements between $1.2 million – $3 million.
- Mid-Tier Cases: Less severe assaults or weaker evidence of prior knowledge may result in settlements ranging from $125,000 to $500,000.
Potential Legal Obstacles Under CDA
There could be some potential legal obstacles to overcome in holding dating app companies liable for negligence in sex abuse cases. In Doe v. Grindr, the Ninth Circuit once again allowed a technology company to evade accountability for the harm its platform facilitated, hiding behind the broad shield of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
The case involved a 15-year-old boy who was tragically sexually assaulted by adult men he was matched with on Grindr, a dating app that makes no meaningful effort to verify users’ ages. Instead of recognizing the real-world dangers created by Grindr’s reckless design choices, the court dismissed every claim on the basis that holding the company accountable would be treating it as a “publisher” of third-party content—precisely the kind of corporate immunity Section 230 was never intended to provide for platforms profiting off child exploitation.
John Doe, the plaintiff, argued that Grindr’s defective design—specifically, its geolocation-based matching system and its failure to implement basic age verification—created an environment where predators could easily access and exploit minors.
He brought claims under state product liability and negligence laws, as well as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), a federal statute allowing victims to sue those who knowingly facilitate or benefit from sex trafficking. But the court dismissed the state law claims, holding that Section 230 immunized Grindr from liability since these claims would treat the company as a publisher of user-generated content. This flawed reasoning ignores the distinction between content moderation (which Section 230 protects) and product design (which should not be immune from liability).
Doe also attempted to hold Grindr accountable under the TVPRA, arguing that Grindr knowingly facilitated child sex trafficking by failing to screen users, failing to warn minors of risks, and profiting from an inherently dangerous platform. The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) provides an exception to Section 230 immunity for platforms that knowingly participate in sex trafficking. However, the court found that Doe failed to meet the high bar required for TVPRA claims, ruling that Grindr’s actions amounted to “turning a blind eye” rather than actively engaging in trafficking. This sets a dangerous precedent—allowing tech companies to ignore clear red flags of exploitation on their platforms without consequence, as long as they can claim they were not directly involved.
For a plaintiff to successfully sue a tech company under the TVPRA, they must now prove not only that the platform was used for trafficking, but that the company knowingly participated in or financially benefitted from that trafficking in a way that directly furthered the abuse. Courts have required evidence of actual knowledge—such as internal documents proving the company knew trafficking was occurring and still refused to act. Simply demonstrating willful ignorance, negligence, or profit from known exploitative use should be enough. But it is not.
Plaintiffs may have a better chance of overcoming Section 230 immunity by framing cases as product liability lawsuits—arguing that a platform’s design features, not its content, created an inherently dangerous environment.
Contact Us About a Dating App Sex Abuse Lawsuit
If you were sexually assault by someone you met on a dating app, contact our lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation.