BANGALORE v. MATCH GROUP LLC (2025)

In this small claims action, claimant seeks to recover $10,000.00 from defendant, Match Group LLC, for alleged damages arising out of defendant terminating claimant's online dating profile accounts. Claimant alleges breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violations of General Business Law § 349.

On February 25, 2025, this Court conducted a non-jury trial on the FTR. Claimant appeared on his own behalf and introduced one packet of paperwork, collectively marked Claimant's Exhibit A. Defendant was represented by counsel and introduced two exhibits, marked Defendant's Exhibits 1-2.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Recitation, as required by CPLR 4213(b), of the finding of essential facts relied upon by the Court:

On or about January 2024, claimant created a free online dating profile on the app Hinge, a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant. On March 18, 2024, Hinge notified claimant that his account on Hinge had been terminated. Claimant filed an appeal request, which was denied by Hinge by letter dated March 18, 2024, stating: “Our team has reviewed your appeal request and confirmed that you are in violation of our Terms of Service and our Community Guidelines. Therefore your account will remain banned. This decision is informed and final and subsequent appeals will not be considered.” Claimant's Exhibit A.

Defendant would not provide claimant with further details as to why his account was banned, citing its policy of not violating the privacy of users who report misconduct. Defendant's Exhibit 2.

Defendant, Match Group LLC, owns a multitude of various online dating apps, including Tinder; consequently, when claimant was banned from Hinge he was also banned from Tinder, where he also had created an account. Although claimant never paid any money to Hinge for a premium subscription service, he paid $14.14 for a one-month premium subscription fee to Tinder on May 21, 2023, which claimant is looking to recover. Claimant's Exhibit A.

Claimant, who is employed full-time by Apple Inc. as a software engineer, also seeks reimbursement for the time he spent “building detailed profiles, curating photos, and developing a positive reputation on these platforms.” Claimant's Exhibit A. Claimant seeks to be reimbursed for 260 hours of his time at the rate at which he is paid by Apple Inc. as a software engineer at $94.40 per hour.

Claimant also alleges that defendant has breached New York General Business Law § 349 by engaging in deceptive or fraudulent business practices.

To create his profile, claimant agreed to Hinge's Terms of Use, which state, as here pertinent:

By accessing or using Hinge's services, you agree to be bound by this Terms of Use Agreement (the “Terms or Agreement”), including our Privacy Policy, Cookie Policy, Member Principles, and Safety Dating Advice, so it is important that you read this Agreement and these policies and procedures carefully before you create an account.

Defendant's Exhibit 1.

Further, in Article 9 of the Terms of Use, Hinge details the policies surrounding an Account Termination:

9. ACCOUNT TERMINATION

If you no longer wish to use our Services, or if we terminate your account for any reason, here's what you need to know.

․

Hinge reserves the right to investigate and, if appropriate, suspend or terminate your account without a refund if Hinge believes that you have violated these Terms, misused our Services, or behaved in a way that Hinge regards as inappropriate or unlawful, on or off our Services. We reserve the right to make use of any personal, technological, legal, or other means available to enforce the Terms, at any time without liability and without the obligation to give you prior notice, including, but not limited to, preventing you from accessing the Services.

If you account is terminated by you or by Hinge for any reason, these Terms continue and remain enforceable between you and Hinge, and you will not be entitled to any refund for purchases made.

Defendant's Exhibit 1.

Defendant also submitted into evidence a section from Hinge's online Help Center, entitled “Why was my account banned?” which states, as here pertinent:

In many circumstances, we do not provide banned users with reasons for their ban. While we recognize it may be frustrating not to fully understand the specifics behind a ban, please know that a variety of factors can contribute to your ban: reports on your account, review from our content moderation team and/or automated decision making. We keep these decisions private to protect the anonymity of any users who may have reported you and in accordance with our obligation to maintain the safety and integrity of the Hinge community.

Defendant's Exhibit 2.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

It is claimant's burden to establish his cause of action by a preponderance of the evidence. “The evidence must be of such weight as to produce a reasonable belief in the truth of the facts asserted; mere proof of a possibility is insufficient to establish a fact by a preponderance of the evidence.” 8 Carmody-Wait 2d § 56:14.

In order to prevail on a claim for breach of contract, a claimant must demonstrate: (1) an agreement between the parties; (2) performance by the claimant; (3) failure to perform by the breaching party; and (4) resultant damages. Austrian Airlines Oesterreichische Luftverkehrs AG v. UT Fin Corp., 567 F. Supp. 2d 579, 592 (SDNY 2008), affd sub nom. Austrian Airlines Oesterreichishe Luftverkehrs AG v UT Fin. Corp., 336 Fed Appx 39 (2d Cir 2009).

At trial, claimant was unable to identify what contract was breached by Hinge terminating his account. Moreover, to the extent that claimant alleges Hinge breached the Terms of Use, such argument is unavailing, as the Terms of Use unambiguously permit Hinge to terminate a user's account if Hinge believes their Terms of Use have been violated.

Moreover, to the extent claimant asserts a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the law is well-settled that a “claim for ‘breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing ․ may not be used as a substitute for a nonviable claim of breach of contract.” Smile Train, Inc. v Ferris Consulting Corp., 117 AD3d 629, 630 (1st Dept 2014).

New York General Business Law § 349(a) declares that “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state are hereby declared unlawful.”

A claimant seeking to bring a cause of action under New York General Business Law § 349 “must prove three elements: first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the [claimant] suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.” Stutman v Chem. Bank, 95 NY2d 24, 29 (2000).

“Thus, to prevail in a cause of action under GBL §§ 349 and 350, the [claimant] must prove that the defendant made misrepresentations or omissions that were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer in the [claimant's circumstances, that the [claimant] was deceived by those misrepresentations or omissions and that as a result the [claimant] suffered injury.”

Solomon v Bell Atl. Corp., 9 AD3d 49, 52 (1st Dept 2004).

In the instant case, while claimant can establish that the online dating app is consumer oriented, he fails to establish that the defendant made misrepresentations or omissions that were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer in claimant's circumstances. Hinge's Terms of Use unambiguously forewarn their customers about what circumstances could lead to an account termination, and acceptance of those Terms of Use is required before an account may be created.

Additionally, to the extent claimant seeks reimbursement of the $14.14 he paid to Tinder in May 2023, claimant's account was not terminated until March of 2024. Accordingly, he already received the full benefit of his $14.14 and defendant has not been unjustly enriched at claimant's expense.

VERDICT

The Court finds in favor of defendant.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the complaint is dismissed, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in defendant's favor accordingly.

This constitutes the decision, verdict, and order of the court.

Allison R. Greenfield, J.