Grindr Gay Sodomite

Sodomite Dating App Grindr to Pay $35 Million Over Shared HIV Data

  • Grindr has agreed to pay $35 million to settle a UK lawsuit over sharing users’ HIV status
  • The settlement covers roughly 12,000 UK users who allege their data was shared with advertisers without consent
  • Grindr denies wrongdoing but will pay £13 million by the end of 2026 and another £13 million by March 2027
  • The data sharing occurred before 2020, when Grindr was owned by a Chinese gaming company
  • Norway’s data protection authority separately fined Grindr $7 million in 2021, a penalty upheld on appeal in 2025

(Natural News)—Grindr has agreed to pay £26 million ($35 million) to settle a lawsuit brought by roughly 12,000 UK users who alleged the dating app shared their sensitive personal information, including HIV status and test dates, with advertising companies without consent. The suit was filed in April 2024 at the High Court of England and Wales by the London firm Austen Hays and was settled on September 2, 2026, after roughly two years of litigation. Grindr, headquartered in West Hollywood, California, denies any wrongdoing but will pay to resolve the claims.

No admission of liability in settlement deal

Grindr stated in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the “settlement includes no findings or admission of liability.” The company acknowledged the emotional toll on users, saying it “recognizes and acknowledges the distress and loss of trust expressed by some of its UK users regarding that pre-2020 period.” The data sharing at issue occurred before 2020, when the app was owned by Chinese gaming conglomerate Beijing Kunlun Tech.

ADVERTISEMENT

The settlement will be paid in two equal installments: £13 million by December 31, 2026, and another £13 million by March 31, 2027. Grindr has not said how much individual claimants will receive; the total pool will first be reduced by legal fees and insurance costs, according to Austen Hays.

Claims cover HIV status and medication data shared with advertisers

Austen Hays, the firm that brought the action, alleged that Grindr disclosed highly personal details including users’ HIV status, dates of HIV tests, and whether individuals took medication to prevent infection. The firm argued this violated UK privacy laws because the data was shared for commercial advertising purposes without meaningful consent. Anonymity orders were granted by the court to protect the identities of those bringing the claims.

The practice first came to light in 2018, when Norwegian researchers discovered Grindr had been sharing HIV status information with two analytics providers, Apptimize and Localytics. Grindr said at the time that the practice was consistent with industry norms, then reversed course and stopped sharing HIV data with outside companies once the findings became public.

Privacy reforms since 2020 cited by company

Grindr has emphasized it is a different company today than during the years under scrutiny. The app was sold to investment group San Vicente Acquisition in 2020 for $608 million, after U.S. national security officials raised concerns that Chinese ownership could allow Beijing to access American users’ personal data. In 2022, Grindr went public on the New York Stock Exchange through a merger with a special purpose acquisition company.

In its SEC filing, Grindr stated that since 2020 it has “overhauled its privacy program with a keen focus on the unique needs of its community.” The company added, “Grindr is and remains a safe space for users, committed to transparency, user control, and responsible data practices.” The case marks the second major legal setback for Grindr over data handling, following a $7 million fine imposed by Norway’s data protection authority in 2021 for similar violations, a penalty that Norway’s appeals court upheld in October 2025.

The case is a reminder of how casually deeply personal health information, status that once carried real social stigma, can be commodified by tech platforms chasing ad revenue. For a company whose entire business model rests on user trust, a $35 million bill may be less costly than the erosion of that trust itself.

Sources for this article include: