Match Group Sues Insurance Broker Marsh Over Lost Tinder Coverage

Match Group, the parent company of dating app Tinder, has filed a broker malpractice lawsuit against Marsh USA in New York Supreme Court. The complaint accuses the insurance broker of failing to notify Tinder’s insurer of a claim before the policy expired in August 2016, resulting in denied coverage.

Match Group is seeking approximately $3.9 million, including $2.9 million in damages from an underlying lawsuit and nearly $1 million in legal fees. The case stems from a long-running dispute tied to the invention of Tinder’s “Super Like” feature.

In 2016, product-development consultant John Mellesmoen sued Tinder, claiming he was not compensated for pitching the idea to then-CEO Sean Rad during a shopping mall meeting. His attorneys sent a letter in February 2016 asserting legal claims and suggesting compensation. Tinder received formal notice of the lawsuit on August 17, 2016. The company forwarded it to Marsh on August 19, but the broker did not notify insurer Beazley until the morning of August 22 – after the policy had expired on August 20, a Saturday.

Beazley denied coverage, arguing the February letter constituted a “claim” under the policy, triggering a notice obligation before expiration. Match Group sued Beazley in 2022, initially winning at the district court level. However, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Match Group, determining the letter qualified as a claim. The company later dropped the suit against the insurer and turned its attention to Marsh. Marsh has not publicly commented on the filing.

In simple terms, the timing when information was exchanged has put Tinder at odds with Marsh over the strict rules behind their insurance policy, and the costs and damages that resulted from Match Group having improper information.

While this might not impact anything directly for the platform’s users, it will absolutely have at least a short-term impact on the higher-level focus of the platform. With Super Likes being such a distinct part of how Tinder functions – as well as something that it monetizes, albeit indirectly through subscriptions – any legal tension surrounding the feature could lead to it being changed, reworked, or outright removed and replaced with an alternative in the future.