51–60 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it was an internal startup made from Match.
Why did a dating site launch a dating app as a separate startup? What was the logic there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Who is their target audience?
If you had this obviously brilliant app idea why would you launch it as an internal project? Something about the founding story here has never added up.
There's a similar plot in the Silicon Valley TV show (Piped Piper v.s. Hooli).
If you had this obviously brilliant app idea why would you launch it as an internal project? Something about the founding story here has never added up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt he gets re-elected, so I would put forth the assertion that being non-civil and acting like a jackass doesn't work long term. People get a good look at it and it isn't appealing when they can see it for what it is.
It got him elected to start.
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.
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…
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…