He used Hinge to rape women. Guess who Big Tech is protecting? | Opinion

Newly released federal records show that Match.com continued recommending young women to Jeffrey Epstein years after his conviction as a sex offender. In 2012, the company congratulated him on his “first 18 matches” and supplied him with curated profiles of women in their early 20s, despite his status as a registered offender being public and easily verifiable.

Match.com’s handling of Epstein was not an isolated failure by a single platform. Match Group owns many of the most popular dating apps in the world, and its failed approach to safety, enforcement and algorithmic promotion has continued for years.

Epstein’s connection to Match Group dating apps could run even deeper. He also seems to have found young women through other Match apps like OkCupid, hobnobbed with the owner, Barry Diller, and possessed documents showing he might have been an investor in Match Group.

In September 2020, Hinge was told that Denver cardiologist Stephen Matthews had drugged and raped a woman he met through the app. The survivor contacted Hinge the next day after waking up naked on his floor. A hospital exam confirmed sexual penetration while she was incapacitated. Hinge responded that it had taken “immediate steps” and later assured her Matthews had been “permanently banned.”

That assurance was false. Three months later, Hinge recommended Matthews to the same survivor again. In fact, the company continued promoting him to women using features like “Most Compatible” and “Standout.” Matthews remained active on Hinge for nearly three more years, using the same name, photos and carefully cultivated “trusted doctor” persona.

In 2024, a Denver jury convicted Matthews of 35 counts related to the drugging and/or sexual assault of 11 women between 2019 and 2023. A former district attorney called him “one of the most prolific serial rapists in the history of the state of Colorado.” He was sentenced to 158 years in prison. 

To date, Hinge has faced no accountability.

Big Tech misuses law to shield itself. Courts can fix that.

Thankfully, that may be changing. I represent a group of survivors now suing Hinge, arguing that the company’s own conduct, including its design choices, safety failures and continued promotion of Matthews after reports of rape, placed users in foreseeable danger.

Unfortunately, when survivors seek accountability, Big Tech companies respond with the same defense. They argue that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields them from responsibility for what happens through their services. 

But Section 230 was never intended to immunize companies for their own conduct. It was written to protect social media platforms from liability for third-party speech, not to excuse decisions about product design, safety architecture and algorithmic promotion that foreseeably place users in danger. That conduct falls squarely within the traditional scope of negligence and product liability law.

Section 230 does not excuse harm caused by a platform’s own design. Courts regularly assess foreseeability and responsibility in cases involving dangerous products and environments.

Dating apps should be held to the same standard, especially when evidence shows they continued promoting known predators and misled users about safety.

Our firm, C.A. Goldberg, successfully used this theory to shut down Omegle, a platform that paired strangers for anonymous video chats while children were being sexually exploited through its service. Omegle claimed Section 230 protection. The courts rejected that defense, finding that the harm stemmed from Omegle’s own product design, lack of safeguards and failure to act despite repeated warnings. Faced with mounting liability, Omegle shut down.

Once liability is on the table, transparency follows as a matter of course. Discovery allows courts and juries to examine how algorithms operate, how reports are handled and how often known offenders are allowed to return. This process does more to change corporate behavior than any voluntary advisory council or public-facing safety pledge. 

When companies design environments that predictably place people in danger, the judicial system exists to intervene. Epstein’s access to dating platforms and Matthews’ yearslong reign on Hinge reveal an industry that has prioritized growth and profit over user safety. 

Courts are capable of enforcing responsibility when companies refuse to do so themselves. Dating platforms have given them every reason to act.

Carrie Goldberg is a victims’ rights attorney and the founder of C.A. Goldberg, PLLC, a law firm that litigates against Big Tech companies and others when their products enable stalking, harassment and exploitation. She is the author of "Nobody's Victim," a New York Times editor’s choice.