COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 14—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

The Company has funding commitments in the form of purchase obligations and surety bonds. The purchase obligations due in less than one year are $83.4 million, the purchase obligations due between one and three years are $184.6 million, and no purchase obligations are due between three and five years, for a total of $268.0 million in purchase obligations. The purchase obligations primarily relate to web hosting service commitments. Letters of credit and surety bonds totaling $0.5 million are currently outstanding as of December 31, 2022.

Contingencies

In the ordinary course of business, the Company is a party to various lawsuits. The Company establishes reserves for specific legal matters when it determines that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the loss is reasonably estimable. Management has also identified certain other legal matters where we believe an unfavorable outcome is not probable and, therefore, no reserve is established. Although management currently believes that resolving claims against us, including claims where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible, will not have a material impact on the liquidity, results of operations, or financial condition of the Company, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management’s view of these matters may change in the future. The Company also evaluates other contingent matters, including income and non-income tax contingencies, to assess the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and estimated extent of potential loss. It is possible that an unfavorable outcome of one or more of these lawsuits or other contingencies could have a

material impact on the liquidity, results of operations, or financial condition of the Company. See “Note 3—Income Taxes” for additional information related to income tax contingencies.

Pursuant to the Transaction Agreement, we have agreed to indemnify IAC for matters relating to any business of Former Match Group, including indemnifying IAC for costs related to the matters described below.

The official names of legal proceedings in the descriptions below (shown in italics) reflect the original names of the parties when the proceedings were filed as opposed to the current names of the parties following the separation of Match Group and IAC.

Tinder Optionholder Litigation Against Former Match Group and Match Group

On August 14, 2018, ten then-current and former employees of Match Group, LLC or Tinder, Inc. (“Tinder”), a former subsidiary of Former Match Group, filed a lawsuit in New York state court against Former Match Group and Match Group. See Sean Rad et al. v. IAC/InterActiveCorp and Match Group, Inc., No. 654038/2018 (Supreme Court, New York County). The complaint alleged that in 2017, the defendants: (i) wrongfully interfered with a contractually established process for the independent valuation of Tinder by certain investment banks, resulting in a substantial undervaluation of Tinder and a consequent underpayment to the plaintiffs upon exercise of their Tinder stock options, and (ii) then wrongfully merged Tinder into Former Match Group, thereby depriving certain of the plaintiffs of their contractual right to later valuations of Tinder on a stand-alone basis. The complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, interference with contractual relations (as against Former Match Group only), and interference with prospective economic advantage, and sought compensatory damages in the amount of at least $2 billion, as well as punitive damages. On August 31, 2018, four plaintiffs who were still employed by Former Match Group filed a notice of discontinuance of their claims without prejudice, leaving the six former employees as the remaining plaintiffs. On June 13, 2019, the court issued a decision and order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for unjust enrichments, as well as the merger-related claim for breach of contract as to two of the remaining six plaintiffs, and otherwise denying defendants’ motion to dismiss. On July 13, 2020, the four former plaintiffs filed arbitration demands with the American Arbitration Association asserting the same valuation claims and on September 3, 2020, the four arbitrations were consolidated. Trial commenced on November 8, 2021. In accordance with the parties’ agreement in December 2021, we paid $441 million to settle all claims in trial and in arbitration in June 2022.

FTC Lawsuit Against Former Match Group

On September 25, 2019, the United States Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Texas against Former Match Group. See FTC v. Match Group, Inc., No. 3:19:cv-02281-K (Northern District of Texas). The complaint alleges that, prior to mid-2018, for marketing purposes Match.com notified non-paying users that other users were attempting to communicate with them, even though Match.com had identified those subscriber accounts as potentially fraudulent, thereby inducing non-paying users to subscribe and exposing them to the risk of fraud should they subscribe. The complaint also challenges the adequacy of Match.com’s disclosure of the terms of its six-month guarantee, the efficacy of its cancellation process, and its handling of chargeback disputes. The complaint seeks among other things permanent injunctive relief, civil penalties, restitution, disgorgement, and costs of suit. On March 24, 2022, the court granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice on Claims I and II of the complaint relating to communication notifications and granted our motion to dismiss with respect to all requests for monetary damages on Claims III and IV relating to the guarantee offer and chargeback policy. On July 19, 2022, the FTC filed an amended complaint adding Match Group, LLC as a defendant. We believe that the FTC’s claims regarding Match.com’s practices, policies, and procedures are without merit and will defend vigorously against them.