Six women who were drugged and sexually assaulted after matching with a Denver man on online dating apps are now suing the apps’ parent company.

The plaintiffs, all victims of Stephen Matthews, a Denver cardiologist found guilty in 2024 of sexually assaulting 11 women, allege that IAC and its subsidiary Match Group Inc., which owns Tinder, Hinge and several other dating apps, has continued to aid and abet predators on its products through inadequate safety features and a lack of meaningful action to change them.

The apps continued to recommend Matthews’s profile to women whom he then assaulted even after their representatives said he had been “permanently banned,” according to the suit. In cases when his profile had been shut down, Matthews would create a new one with the same personal phone number, same real photographs of himself and under his same real name without consequence.

The victims are seeking relief for all economic damages, including those brought on for physical injuries and psychological harm, according to the suit. Their counsel includes attorneys from several firms: Gerash Steiner, C.A. Goldberg, Dormer Harpring, McDermott Legal and Shafner Law.

A former cardiologist at St. Anthony North, Matthews was sentenced to 158 years to life in prison at the conclusion of the 2024 trial after being found guilty of 35 sexual assault charges. Prosecutors said that between 2019 and 2023, he met women on dating apps, assaulted them and then “gaslit” them afterward.

All six plaintiffs, each under the Jane Doe pseudonym, recounted their own interaction with Matthews in the suit, all of which began on either Hinge or Tinder and ended with him drugging and raping them.

One of the several claims in the suit is that Match Group has made it impossible for users of its apps to avoid predators like him, even if they have been previously reported, and that sometimes those accounts may even be promoted to members.

The plaintiffs also allege that the apps’ representatives make commitments to improve their systems without having the ability to actually fulfill them. Other claims include that the apps violated the Colorado’s Consumer Protection Act — in that they made false, misleading and deceptive claims about the services they provide — and that they made money off Matthews’ continued activity.

None of the plaintiffs were identified in the lawsuit as they were all victims of sexual assault.