KIM V. TINDER, INC., No. 22-55345 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's approval of a class action settlement between Tinder and Lisa Kim, a user of the dating app, ruling that Kim was not an adequate class representative. This class action lawsuit against Tinder was over its former age-based pricing model. Kim had agreed to arbitration, unlike over 7,000 potential members of the class, creating a fundamental conflict of interest that violated Rule 23(a)(4). The court found that Kim had a strong interest in settling her claim as she had no chance of going to trial, unlike the other members. The court also noted that Kim failed to vigorously litigate the case on behalf of the class, with her approach to opposing Tinder’s motion to compel arbitration not suggesting vigor. The court remanded the case for consideration of Kim's individual action against Tinder.
Court Description: Class Action / Settlement. The panel vacated the district court’s order approving a revised class action settlement between plaintiff Lisa Kim and Tinder, Inc., a mobile dating application.
The panel held that Kim was not an adequate representative of the putative class, as required by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a)(4). First, Kim had a conflict of interest with other class members. She had a strong interest in settling her claim because, unlike the 7,000 or more class members who may not be bound by arbitration at all, she had no chance of going to trial. Kim’s conflict was exacerbated by other provisions in Tinder’s Terms of Use. Second, Kim did not vigorously litigate this case on behalf of the putative class. She failed to provide record evidence that the parties conducted extensive discovery prior to engaging in the settlement talks, and her approach to opposing Tinder’s motion to compel arbitration was not suggestive of vigor.
The panel remanded for the district court to consider Kim’s individual action against Tinder, which has been compelled to arbitration.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.