Defendant 'Splitting Hairs,' Says Match Group in Reply Supporting Arbitration
Plaintiff Sylvia Ciapinska “tried to distract by splitting hairs” about terminology used to describe Match’s method of obtaining agreement to Tinder's terms of use, said Match Group’s Monday reply memorandum of law (docket 2:23-cv-23115) in U.S. District Court for New…
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.
Jersey in Newark in support of its motion to compel arbitration or alternatively to transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas. Ciapinska sued Match in December (see 2312180037) alleging another Tinder user misappropriated her likeness on the dating site. Ciapinska alleges Match falsely advertised Tinder’s photo verification process, leading her and class members to believe that such misappropriation wouldn’t be possible. Whether Tinder’s terms are characterized as a “Clickwrap” or “Sign-In Wrap” agreement, “there is no question Plaintiff had reasonably conspicuous notice that she was agreeing to terms, including an arbitration provision,” it said. If the court agrees that Ciapinska agreed to the Tinder terms of use, the rest of her arguments against arbitration “easily fall away,” it said. Tinder’s terms, “clearly disclosed" and accepted under New Jersey law, state that its users "are giving up the right to sue in court,” it said. The terms “explicitly delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and the Supreme Court has made clear that courts must honor such clear and unambiguous delegations,” it said.