Popular dating apps are doing more than just pairing hopeful romantics with a partner they can spend the rest of their lives with. A new lawsuit filed on Valentine's Day accuses the apps of luring users with the promise of love, only to trap them in an addictive cycle that puts profits over people.

The lawsuit was brought forward by six plaintiffs from California, Florida, and New York. The 59-page complaint accuses the parent company of popular dating apps Tinder, Hinge, and The League of gamifying online dating to keep users scrolling, among other claims. The lawsuit makes a bold claim that the parent company, Match Group, “transforms users into gamblers locked in a search for psychological rewards that Match makes elusive on purpose."

While the three apps named in the lawsuit are free for download and free to use, the platforms sell subscription services that allow users to have a better experience when they use the app. For example, Hinge offers a service for $3.99 that allows users to send a ”rose” to a “standout” profile.

Other subscriptions allow users to have unlimited swipes, which the lawsuit says perpetuates addictive tendencies as users are caught in an infinite loop of scrolling. Subscriptions aside, the lawsuit explains that the apps offer features including push notifications that draw users to the apps even when they are not in use. The dating apps are "intended to erode users' ability to disengage," the lawsuit says.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that "Harnessing powerful technologies and hidden algorithms, Match intentionally designs the platforms with addictive, game-like design features, which lock users into a perpetually pay-to-play loop that prioritizes corporate profits over its marketing promises and customers' relationship goals."

At the heart of the lawsuit is the legal challenge of whether or not Match Group should be required to disclose to users that the dating apps are potentially addictive in nature, especially considering that the apps use unique design features that have a history of drawing users in. This so-called addictive nature is a design tactic that is not limited to just dating apps but has been observed in other popular apps including social media platforms.

In arguing that the dating apps are addictive, this lawsuit joins a flurry of other lawsuits that have been recently filed against tech-based companies that employ addictive design user interfaces. The most recent lawsuits filed have been by states targeting the addictive nature of popular social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat.

Generally, tech companies have been immune to lawsuits regarding content that is shared on their platforms under a federal law known as Section 230, a key provision of the Communications Decency Act. The law, which was enacted in 1996, allows interactive computer services such as social media platforms to have limited federal immunity. In part, this law allows social media platforms to serve as public squares for communal discussion without subjecting the platform to liability over users' actions on the platform.

However, this recent flurry of lawsuits aimed at tech companies is targeting them with claims outside of violations of Section 230. More recent claims include violations of product liability, design defects, and consumer law violations as seen in the lawsuit against Match Group.

The lawsuit against Match Group makes several claims including violations of state and federal consumer protections, false advertising, and defective design flaws. The complaint says that the dating apps sold their subscriptions “through unfair, deceptive, untrue, and misleading” practices and that they made “misleading statements” that drew customers into the addictive platforms.

Hinge, the dating platform that touts it's ”designed to be deleted,” is accused of being “designed to extract subscription cost from captive users, causing them to return on the app” as opposed to its advertising that promises to help users to find love.

Match Group has pushed back against the lawsuit saying "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."

The lawsuit argues otherwise and even references a comment Tinder co-founder Jonathan Badeen made to journalist Nancy Jo Sales. Sales directed the popular documentary Swiped: Hooking Up in the Digital Age. In the interview, Badeen told Sales that Tinder had been inspired in part by the work of behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner. One of Skinner’s most recognizable experiments involved conditioning pigeons to continuously hammer at a food tray after food was delivered to them at random intervals.

The lawsuit explains, "Just as pigeons can be conditioned to peck at determinable intervals, so can users be conditioned to endlessly swipe," adding, "Users with unlimited swipes will chase the elusive high of matching, match more often, and fall victim to ghosting and breadcrumbing at higher rates." As users are always chasing the elusive high to match with someone, the behaviors that develop from this addictive design encourage them to continue interacting with the app while getting a reduced level of satisfaction with the ultimate goal of matching with a prospective partner.

The lawsuit is seeking class-action status and an immediate injunction that would prevent the apps from selling their subscriptions, along with unspecified damages and a jury trial.