Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 144 posts

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#21

Post by usepgp »

wp381640 wrote: post #8
nlh wrote: post #7

Random semi-tangential question: It seems that when companies/PR people/lawyers respond to lawsuits, they always use some version of this EXACT phrase: "The allegations in the complaint are meritless, and ____ intends to vigorously defend against them." Responses almost always use the word "meritless" (or "baseless") and almost always describe their forthcoming response to be "vigorous". Is there a legal reason why t…

It's just a cliche, see also "we take your security/privacy very seriously" when disclosing issues

we seriously will take your security/privacy

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#22

Post by geofft »

In 2014, former Tinder VP Whitney Wolfe, who previously had a "cofounder" title (and would later go on to found Bumble), sued IAC and Match over sexual harassment from another Tinder "cofounder" Justin Mateen, who is one of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. (I put "cofounder" in quotation marks because it was an internal project at IAC and the history is a complicated.) Mateen was suspended and the lawsuit was settled for $1M.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/07/01...

https://techcrunch.com/2014/07/09/whitney-wolfe-vs-tinder/

http://valleywag.gawker.com/every-fucked-up-text-from-the-ti...

Earlier this year Match and Bumble both sued each other in the midst of an attempt from Match to acquire Bumble. I am a little lost but I think Match / Tinder sued for $450M for patent infringement and Bumble countersued for $400M for using the lawsuit to make them look less attractive to potential (non-Match) acquirers?

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#23

Post by craftyguy »

larkeith wrote: post #18
hello_asdf wrote: post #3

That is a brutal response from Match and IAC. Their statement also mentions that two separate banks were part of the valuation. I'd be curious what their proof is. A couple fun phrases from the statement: > his merry band of plaintiffs > but sour grapes alone do not a lawsuit make

Honestly, this makes me lose any respect I might have had for them - while the lawsuit seems odd, resorting to ad hominem attacks is extremely unprofessional, and especially so in a PR statement. Civility and basic courtesy is not copyrighted, use it in your public statements.

> Civility and basic courtesy is not copyrighted, use it in your public statements.

POTUS would disagree. Civility and basic courtesy are no longer popular. Such is the world we now live in.

Edit: Anyone care to dispute this? I don't agree with it, but I'm also not willing to ignore it.

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#24

Post by draw_down »

larkeith wrote: post #18
hello_asdf wrote: post #3

That is a brutal response from Match and IAC. Their statement also mentions that two separate banks were part of the valuation. I'd be curious what their proof is. A couple fun phrases from the statement: > his merry band of plaintiffs > but sour grapes alone do not a lawsuit make

Honestly, this makes me lose any respect I might have had for them - while the lawsuit seems odd, resorting to ad hominem attacks is extremely unprofessional, and especially so in a PR statement. Civility and basic courtesy is not copyrighted, use it in your public statements.

https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#25

Post by samstave »

craftyguy wrote: post #23
larkeith wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, this makes me lose any respect I might have had for them - while the lawsuit seems odd, resorting to ad hominem attacks is extremely unprofessional, and especially so in a PR statement. Civility and basic courtesy is not copyrighted, use it in your public statements.

> Civility and basic courtesy is not copyrighted, use it in your public statements. POTUS would disagree. Civility and basic courtesy are no longer popular. Such is the world we now live in. Edit: Anyone care to dispute this? I don't agree with it, but I'm also not willing to ignore it.

Funny - I was just thinking the same thing:

"But wacky match would have you believe their lowball offer was anything but the offer of a loser! sad!"

I mean, for crying out loud...

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#26

Post by dilap »

craftyguy wrote: post #23
larkeith wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, this makes me lose any respect I might have had for them - while the lawsuit seems odd, resorting to ad hominem attacks is extremely unprofessional, and especially so in a PR statement. Civility and basic courtesy is not copyrighted, use it in your public statements.

> Civility and basic courtesy is not copyrighted, use it in your public statements. POTUS would disagree. Civility and basic courtesy are no longer popular. Such is the world we now live in. Edit: Anyone care to dispute this? I don't agree with it, but I'm also not willing to ignore it.

I think you're right. Being civil doesn't pay dividends unless most other people are civil too too, and if incivility is punished. Neither of those things are true, generally, right now, so being civil just makes you look weak.

C'est la vie.

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#27

Post by erikpukinskis »

samstave wrote: post #25
craftyguy wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Civility and basic courtesy is not copyrighted, use it in your public statements. POTUS would disagree. Civility and basic courtesy are no longer popular. Such is the world we now live in. Edit: Anyone care to dispute this? I don't agree with it, but I'm also not willing to ignore it.

Funny - I was just thinking the same thing: "But wacky match would have you believe their lowball offer was anything but the offer of a loser! sad!" I mean, for crying out loud...

That’s not a real quote, right?

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#29

Post by mmanfrin »

larkeith wrote: post #18
hello_asdf wrote: post #3

That is a brutal response from Match and IAC. Their statement also mentions that two separate banks were part of the valuation. I'd be curious what their proof is. A couple fun phrases from the statement: > his merry band of plaintiffs > but sour grapes alone do not a lawsuit make

Honestly, this makes me lose any respect I might have had for them - while the lawsuit seems odd, resorting to ad hominem attacks is extremely unprofessional, and especially so in a PR statement. Civility and basic courtesy is not copyrighted, use it in your public statements.

This is a fairly common tactic in responding to suits, they are endeavoring to make the plaintiff's case seem silly. This is entirely intentional.

You're not their target audience.

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#30

Post by ArtWomb »

$3B valuation sounds quite reasonable for Tinder. Even with Tinder Gold "resetting the metrics" with per transaction monetization.

$IAC total revenues last quarter was approx $1B. At market valuation ~$16B. I could be very wrong, but valuing Tinder at $10B seems upper bound optimistic to me. Match probably enjoys 10x engagement.

Post reply on HN