N.J. Woman Sues Match After Her Photo Appears Under Another Name on Tinder
A New Jersey woman is suing Match Group after she found her photo associated with another woman’s name on the company's online Tinder dating site, said a fraud class action (docket 2:23-cv-23115), removed Thursday to U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark from New Jersey Superior Court in Bergen County.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
On Sept. 27, Sylvia Ciapinska sued Tinder, which was “improperly sued as Tinder,” following its purchase by Match Group in July 2017, said Match's removal notice, saying Match assigned Tinder’s assets and liabilities to Match.com when it acquired Tinder, the complaint said. The Bergen County resident served Match on Nov. 14 in New Jersey state court. She also sued Does 1-10, to be named in an amended complaint when their identities become known, the complaint said.
Ciapinska alleges misappropriation of her likeness after another Tinder user created a profile using her likeness. She also asserts a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, alleging Match falsely advertised Tinder’s photo verification process, leading her and class members to believe that such misappropriation wouldn’t be possible, it said.
Ciapinska created a Tinder account in 2018 and was permanently banned from Tinder, “without explanation,” in 2019, the complaint said. Ciapinska was purportedly confused about the reason for being banned “because she had barely used her account since signing up,” it said. Tinder didn’t respond to an email she sent asking why she was banned, the complaint said.
On Dec. 1, 2022, a friend messaged Ciapinska warning her that someone on Tinder was using her pictures, the complaint said. The friend sent screenshots of a Tinder profile with Ciapinska’s photo under the name Gloria, it said. Ciapinska was “immediately unsettled by this unknown individual” using her likeness without her knowledge or consent, said the complaint. It added Ciapinska was “horrified” when she saw Tinder "verified" the Gloria profile.
Ciapinska accessed the Tinder website to learn how it verifies photos, which includes taking a video selfie and passing a “Liveness check.” In that process, a scan of the face in the video helps the dating site “determine whether the video was taken by a real, live person, and that it was not digitally altered or manipulated,” the complaint said. A second verification step, 3D Face Authentication, “detects your face in your video selfie and your profile photos, and extracts facial geometries using facial recognition technology to generate a unique number or facial geometry 'template,'" the website said.
The individual who created the “Gloria” account was able to take public photos from Ciapinska’s Instagram account and pass the Tinder verification process, the complaint said. Tinder’s platform “gives its users the false impression that these ‘verified’ users, who are most likely scammers, have been confirmed as real and authentic,” the complaint said. Tinder's website says, “'Photo Verification lets you prove you’re the person in your photos. When you see people on the Tinder app with a blue checkmark, it means they’re the real deal,'” the complaint said, promoting photo verification as an important safety feature.
In reality, the photo verification process does nothing to make users safer, the complaint said. “Defendant’s misrepresentations about the legitimacy of its verification process subject users who pay money for the benefit of matching with, interacting with, and potentially meeting offline with, the 'verified' user, who is really a scammer using an innocent person’s photos,” it said.
As a result of Tinder’s false advertising and deceptive business practices, Ciapinska suffered “substantial damage” to her reputation from scammers posing as her online, the complaint said. She will suffer “imminent further harm” to her reputation and right of publicity, as Tinder has no safeguards to prevent “Gloria,” or another falsely verified profile, from performing scams using her likeness, it said. Such scams include “requesting large sums of money from users under false pretenses, catfishing users who believe they are interacting with Plaintiff, or committing any number of other unconscionable acts,” it said.
Ciapinska seeks an award for herself and the class, including a refund of all sums obtained through unlawful activities and treble actual damages; compensatory damages for herself for defendant’s appropriation of her likeness; all legal costs and attorneys’ fees; pre- and post-judgment interest; and injunctive relief ordering Tinder to comply with New Jersey law, it said.