US Date Rape Survivors File Lawsuit Accusing Hinge and Tinder of Enabling Rapists on Their Dating Apps
In February 2025, an explosive civil lawsuit was filed by six women who allege they were raped or sexually assaulted by the same man after meeting him through Hinge. The lawsuit accuses Hinge and Tinder—two of the most popular dating app platforms—of “accommodating rapists across its products” by failing to remove known predators, ignoring user reports, and maintaining system designs that prioritize engagement over safety.
The women, supported by four law firms, are challenging Match Group, the parent company behind Tinder, Hinge, Plenty of Fish, and other major platforms. The US date rape survivors’ lawsuit not only exposes disturbing safety gaps but also threatens to shake the legal protections enjoyed by tech platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
1. Hinge and Tinder Continued Promoting a Convicted Rapist
The lawsuit centers on Stephen Matthews, a Denver cardiologist who, despite being first reported to Hinge in 2020, continued to match with women across Match Group apps until his arrest in 2023. He was sentenced to 158 years to life in prison after being convicted on 35 counts related to sexual assault.
According to the dating app reporting project investigation, Matthews used the same profile photos, birth date, and identity—without changing anything—on multiple new accounts. Despite prior reports, he was even promoted as a “Standout” match by the app’s algorithm. The suit claims he remained active on Hinge, benefiting from a system that banned the accounts temporarily but did little to stop them from returning.
This horrifying oversight underscores the plaintiffs’ claim: “apps have a duty” to protect their users, and in this case, the dating app behemoth that operates in over 190 countries failed that duty.
2. System Loopholes Allow Banned Users to Return with Ease
Despite being reported for rape, Matthews and others like him were able to rejoin Tinder and Hinge by creating new accounts using the exact same name, birthday, and profile photos used on their previous accounts. A key flaw in the system is that once a user unmatches, they can no longer be reported. This means banned users can effectively erase their digital trail.
The Denver lawsuit details the cardiologist’s years-long sexual assault spree on Hinge, in which he lured victims using similar patterns: a walk with his dog, a drink at his home, and then violence. Survivors later learned he had already been flagged on multiple platforms, yet continued to match with new victims.
3. Match Group’s Public Safety Promises Don’t Match Reality
Match Group’s reputation as an industry leader in deploying technology for safety is now under scrutiny. While the company publicly claimed it was “deploying technology to promote safety”—such as video verification technology, AI tools, and a portal that helps us better support and communicate with law enforcement investigating crimes—investigations revealed that these efforts were often delayed, fragmented, or inadequate.
In a statement provided to the press, Match Group insisted that “every person deserves safe and respectful experiences” and that they would continue to improve our systems. But internal documents obtained during the 18-month investigation showed that even after a transparency report was promised, it was never released. Instead, key pages mentioning safety reforms were quietly deleted.
4. Internal Teams Warned About the Risks—And Were Ignored
Insiders say safety teams within Match Group’s brands were sounding the alarm for years. Moderation tools such as “Sentinel” tracked reports of abuse across platforms but were inconsistently enforced. In one report, an internal safety specialist warned that the company’s obsession with growth metrics was putting users at risk.
Efforts to hire expert moderators were eventually scaled back, and critical safety roles were outsourced. The lawsuit emphasizes that known predators were allowed to continue their abuse because systems like Sentinel were either underused or deliberately sidelined.
5. Section 230 Could Shield Platforms from Liability—Again
One of the biggest obstacles for survivors is Section 230, a law that protects online platforms from liability for content posted by users. Tinder, Hinge, and other Match Group apps could argue that the assaults were carried out by individuals, not the company.
However, this case is different. It argues that product design, algorithmic recommendations, and repeated failures to remove offenders amount to “negligence” and a “defective product. This could test the limits of Section 230 in new ways.
The case draws comparisons to previous legal efforts, such as those involving Grindr, a gay dating app, where similar arguments were dismissed.
6. The Survivors Demand More Than Damages—They Want Change
The six women bringing civil action are proceeding anonymously but share a united goal: to make dating apps safer for everyone. They argue that the platforms not only failed to warn users of known dangers, but also actively put them at risk by allowing banned users to reappear and even promoting them as ideal matches.
They demand that apps, “potentially the most dangerous product,” be redesigned with safety as a central feature, not an afterthought. This includes more robust account verification, permanent ban tracking across platforms, and clear communication when someone has been reported for assault.
7. What the Public Can Do Right Now
Until regulations catch up and platforms prioritize safety, users can take several precautions:
- Report early: If someone behaves inappropriately, report them before unmatching.
- Screenshot interactions: Save proof in case you need to submit it later.
- Use safety features: Turn on video verification technology where available.
- Stay vigilant: Watch for recycled bios or photos—this may signal a banned user.
- Inform someone: Use features like “Share My Date” to let a trusted friend know where you are.
FAQs About the Hinge and Tinder Lawsuit
What is the lawsuit about?
The date rape survivors’ lawsuit alleges that Hinge and Tinder enabled a rapist to stay on their platforms despite being repeatedly reported for rape, which led to multiple women being sexually assaulted.
What’s Match Group’s response?
In a statement read by spokesperson Kayla Whaling, Match Group said it is “committed to safety” and uses advanced tools to support and communicate with law enforcement. However, survivors say the actions don’t match the promises.
Can users really return after being banned?
Yes. The dating apps reporting project investigation showed that users could return to a dating app like Tinder or Plenty of Fish with the same name, birthday, or profile, highlighting severe gaps in account tracking.
Final Thoughts: A Turning Point for Tech Accountability
This is more than just a lawsuit against Match Group. It’s a wake-up call for the entire online dating industry. As platforms like Hinge and Tinder become the new normal for meeting partners, their role in protecting users must evolve. Users deserve better. Survivors deserve justice. And companies must be held accountable—not just for what they do, but for what they allow.
