Sean Rad Asks Court to Dismiss Match / IAC Unjust Enrichment Lawsuit

26th March 2019 Scott Harvey

Sean Rad, former Tinder CEO and one of the leading figures in the founder’s lawsuit against the app, has called for the court to dismiss Match Group and IAC’s unjust enrichment (counter)suit against him.

Match and IAC claim, for $250 million, that Rad copied internal files and proprietary information. He is then alleged to have used this information for “personal gain.”

According to Rad, his ownership of these files was revealed to Match by his own counsel, during “good-faith discovery discussions” concerning the valuation of stock options. Rad’s motion to dismiss argues that he had “broad rights to possess and use Confidential Information during and after his tenure at Tinder.”

It continues: “This makes perfect sense. Rad was not your average employee; he was the Founder and CEO of a multibillion-dollar company, and could not function in that role if not allowed the discretion to use the documents created by the company he helmed.

“And, during his tenure at Tinder, Rad was aware his interests were potentially at odds with Match’s and was concerned it would try to underpay him and the other founders for the company he built – the most valuable company in Match’s portfolio.”

The case is made that Rad negotiated the rights to hold confidential information, and the rights to use it against Match Group in the event of a disagreement, in an Amendment Agreement to his contract in 2014. He is, therefore, entitled to bring the information forward in the founder’s lawsuit.

Another passage reads: ”Rad’s contractual rights are broad and continuing. First, they give Rad the right to possess and use Confidential Information during and after his employment at Tinder – including in any future Qualifying Valuation Process, in any dispute arising therefrom, or in any other dispute arising with Tinder, Hatch, or their respective affiliates.

“Second, this Agreement applies ‘[n]otwithstanding anything to the contrary in’ the Tinder and Hatch Agreements. In this way, the Amendment Agreement expressly (and intentionally) supersedes any conflicting confidentiality obligation in those earlier agreements.”

Rad’s lawyer, Orin Snyder, told The Verge: “The contract specifically allowed Sean Rad to keep these documents, and IAC and Match are just mad that Sean retained the evidence that will expose their misconduct.” Match did not respond to a request for comment made by the publication.

Match’s original claim states that: “Rad has been unjustly enriched by hiding his repeated and deliberate violations of confidentiality agreements and company policies.”