Overview We are, and from time to time may become, involved in various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of our business activities, such as trademark and patent infringement claims, trademark oppositions, and consumer or advertising complaints, as well as stockholder derivative actions, class action lawsuits, mass arbitrations, and other matters. The amounts that may be recovered in such matters may be subject to insurance coverage. The litigation matters described below involve issues or claims that may be of particular interest to our stockholders, regardless of whether any of these matters may be material to our financial position or operations based upon the standard set forth in the SEC’s rules. Consumer Class Action Litigation Challenging Tinder’s Age-Tiered Pricing On May 28, 2015, a putative state-wide class action was filed against Tinder in state court in California. See Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles). The complaint principally alleges that Tinder violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act by offering and charging users over a certain age a higher price than younger users for subscriptions to its premium Tinder Plus service. Plaintiff sought damages in an unspecified amount. On July 15, 2024, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to certify a class based upon California Tinder Plus and Tinder Gold subscribers age 29 and over. On January 17, 2025, the court denied our motion to compel the class and the plaintiff to arbitration. We filed a Notice of Appeal on January 24, 2025, and on April 18, 2025, the court stayed the case pending our appeal. On September 10, 2025, the parties agreed to settle the case on a class-wide basis for a payment of $60.5 million. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on January 13, 2026, and granted final approval on June 5, 2026. Irish Data Protection Commission Inquiry Regarding Tinder’s Practices On February 3, 2020, we received a letter from the Irish Data Protection Commission (the “DPC”) notifying us that the DPC had commenced an inquiry examining Tinder’s compliance with the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), focusing on Tinder’s processes for handling access and deletion requests and Tinder’s user data retention policies. On January 8, 2024, the DPC provided us with a preliminary draft decision alleging that certain of Tinder’s access and retention policies, largely relating to protecting the safety and privacy of Tinder’s users, violate GDPR requirements. We filed our response to the preliminary draft decision on March 15, 2024, and the DPC issued its draft decision on July 9, 2026. We believe we have strong defenses to these claims and will defend vigorously against them. FTC Investigation of Certain Subsidiary Data Privacy Representations On March 19, 2020, the FTC issued an initial Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) to the Company requiring us to produce certain documents and information regarding the allegedly wrongful conduct of OkCupid in 2014 and our public statements in 2019 regarding such conduct and whether such conduct and statements were unfair or deceptive under the FTC Act. On May 26, 2022, the FTC filed a Petition to Enforce Match Civil Investigative Demand, and on June 20, 2025, the Court ordered that the FTC’s Petition be granted in part and denied in part. See FTC v. Match Group, Inc., No. 1:22-mc-00054 (District of Columbia). On February 23, 2026, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the investigation. The settlement was approved by the FTC and filed with the Northern District of Texas on March 30, 2026. The court approved the settlement on April 30, 2026. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, certain of the Company’s subsidiaries agreed not to misrepresent their privacy practices, including with respect to the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information. The settlement agreement also includes provisions allowing the FTC to monitor the subsidiaries’ compliance. 49 Table of Contents Securities Derivative Actions In December 2024, purported Match Group stockholders filed two derivative complaints in the Central District of California (nominally on behalf of the Company) against certain of Match Group, Inc.’s current and former executive officers and members of its board of directors, alleging violations of the federal securities laws and breach of fiduciary duty stemming from allegations that Match Group materially understated the challenges affecting its Tinder business and, as a result, understated the risk that Tinder's monthly active user count would not recover by the time the Company reported its financial results for the third fiscal quarter of 2024. See Hollin v. Kim, et al., No. 2:24-CV-10776 (Central District of California), and Roy v Kim, et al., No. 2:24-cv-11007 (Central District of California). In August 2025, a third derivative complaint was filed in the Central District of California alleging similar causes of action. See Habedus v. Kim, et al., No. 2:25-cv-07171 (Central District of California). On September 9, 2025, the court dismissed the Habedus derivative action with prejudice as to all defendants. On April 16, 2026, the court in the Roy derivative action granted the plaintiff's request to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice. As to the remaining derivative action, we believe that we have strong defenses to the allegations and will defend vigorously against them. Netherlands Privacy Class Action On December 17, 2024, a writ of summons was filed against MTCH Technologies Services Limited, an indirect subsidiary of the Company, and Match Group, Inc. in the District Court of Amsterdam. Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that defendants unlawfully collected, processed, and shared Dutch Tinder users’ personal data without proper consent in violation of GDPR and Dutch consumer protection laws. See Stichting Take Back Your Privacy v. MTCH Technologies Services Limited et al. (Amsterdam). The lawsuit purports to represent a class of Dutch Tinder users from May 25, 2018 until the court’s final judgment and seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. On May 7, 2025, we filed a motion contesting jurisdiction, and the plaintiff filed an opposition on June 18, 2025. On May 20, 2026, the court confirmed jurisdiction over the non-GDPR claims but has not yet decided on jurisdiction over the GDPR claims. The court is considering staying the entire case, and we are awaiting a decision on that issue. We believe that we have strong defenses to the allegations and will defend vigorously against them.