Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

61–70 of 144 posts

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

#61
post #21
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

we seriously will take your security/privacy

...which is meritless, after all.

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

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Paraphrasing the Trump Tweets as seen here:

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/13/638161148/in-presidential-twe...

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

#63
post #48

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.

Please don't take HN threads on generic tangents and certainly not political ones.

[deleted]

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

#64
post #22

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…

Match might have to find a model besides "buy the latest popular matchmaking firm"?

Why?

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

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Match might have to find a model besides "buy the latest popular matchmaking firm"?

Why?

If they consistently screw over everybody else in the deal, people won't want to deal with them.

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

#66
post #45
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that and $2.95 will get you a cup of coffee.

It will also allow you to look yourself in the mirror every morning and not see a charlatan and a thief. It will allow those around you to have this thing called respect, which still is held dear by many.

We're talking about a company issuing a press release about ongoing litigation. I really think you're going far too far with this.

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

#67
using their domain terminology, just for fun -

Match, Tinder and Bumble are in a weird relationship. Match tried to make an inappropriate pass atTinder, but she is not interested, so considers it as a sexual harassment. Same goes for Bumble.

This is a relationship 101. If they can't settle internally then they should leave this dating business :-)

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

#68
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you ELI5 for me, because I don't understand this at all.

Tinder was a match.com spinoff startup and they gave the founders some stock and money... tinder did well and then when they re-acquired the company they did so at a valuation that allegedly improperly compensated some of the shareholders.

[deleted]

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

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

If they consistently screw over everybody else in the deal, people won't want to deal with them.

Hasn’t stopped them from dominating the market so far.

But I do believe they’re a shady company though.

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

#70

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?

The judge hearing the case.
Post reply on HN