Accused of promoting compulsive use through gamification
On Valentine’s Day, six dating app users filed a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that Tinder, Hinge, and other Match dating apps use addictive, game-like features to promote compulsive use. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Northern District of California, claims that Match’s apps employ “dopamine-manipulating product features” to turn users into “gamblers searching for psychological rewards,” leading to “dating app addiction” that drives costly subscriptions and continuous use.
Match dismissed the lawsuit as “ridiculous,” but experts in online dating noted that it reflected a broader backlash against the way apps gamify human interactions for profit, often leaving users feeling manipulated.
“I’m not surprised that this has resulted in litigation. I believe big tech is the new big tobacco, as smartphones are just as addictive as cigarettes,” said Mia Levitin, author of The Future of Seduction.
Levitin observed that addiction might have been inherent in dating apps from the start, pointing out that Jonathan Badeen, the co-founder of Tinder who created the swiping feature, admitted that it was inspired by BF Skinner’s experiments with pigeons. Skinner conditioned hungry pigeons to believe that randomly delivered food in a tray was prompted by their pecking.
Dating apps hijack the brain’s reward system, prioritizing the short-term dopamine hit over long-term satisfaction, according to Levitin. She likened the experience to the quick fix of junk food rather than the enjoyment of a real meal.
The game-like aspect is evident in the deck-of-cards-style interface pioneered by Tinder. Cultural anthropologist Natasha Dow Schüll, author of Addiction by Design, has compared dating apps to slot machines.
Determining whether dating apps discourage longer-term romantic connections is challenging. One study suggested that couples who meet online are slightly more likely to have less satisfying and stable marriages than couples who meet offline, but establishing causation is difficult.
Natasha McKeever, a lecturer at Leeds University specializing in love and sex, noted that dating apps seem to “encourage bad behaviors – ghosting, breadcrumbing, backburner relationships.” This could be because having a dating app accessible at all times may create a sense that “a better partner for you could always just be one swipe away.”
The issue is that dating apps influence and alter people’s behavior using behavioral science techniques, according to Lee MacKinnon, a lecturer at the London College of Communication who is completing a PhD on the gamification of dating apps.
“People feel very deceived when they’re led to believe that these sites are working in their interest, but actually, they’re acting in the interests of the digital corporations. We have become the product, and our personal lives, our love lives, our most intimate details are capitalized upon, are commodities,” she said.
Although dating apps theoretically open up a wider pool of prospective partners, in practice they “reproduce privilege,” MacKinnon added, by solidifying idealized preferences for certain ethnicities, age groups, and body types. This is exemplified by Match.com’s use of the Elo algorithm, originally developed to rank players in competitive games, she said.
But she pointed out that romantic love in the West has always been gamified. This can be seen in the use of competitive metaphors: the chase and competing for attentions among other suitors to win someone over, with – traditionally – the woman as the prize.
What is definitely new is the way dating apps make romantic prospects available around the clock. A recent survey suggested that millennials spend 10 hours a week on dating apps. Luke Brunning, a philosophy lecturer at the University of Leeds who has researched the ethics of online dating, said infinite profiles resembled the compulsive infinite scroll on social media – with a similarly negative impact on mental health.
Brunning said platforms could introduce improvements, including greater transparency around matching algorithms. They could also educate users on the pitfalls of online dating, punish ghosting and serial swiping by pausing users’ ability to use the app, and show users how they have been behaving to expose unconscious bias.
He said that while plaintiffs in the lawsuit may be right that dating apps are monetizing their users’ attention and romantic investment, that is not unique to dating apps.
I suspect the arguments of this lawsuit may fail to find a sympathetic ear in court. In a way, the plaintiffs have pointed to a systemic problem with the dating app ecosystem.
A Match Group spokesperson said: “This lawsuit is ridiculous and has zero merit. Our business model is not based on advertising or engagement metrics. We actively strive to get people on dates every day and off our apps. Anyone who states anything else doesn’t understand the purpose and mission of our entire industry.”
