California's SB 598: The End of Anonymity for Dating Apps?

Dating platforms operating in California face a stark choice under newly introduced state legislation: transform into identity verification systems collecting social security numbers and government IDs, or operate in violation of what would become the most interventionist dating safety law in US history. State Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil introduced Senate Bill 598 last week, mandating that dating platforms conduct criminal background checks on all users and flag profiles of anyone convicted of violent felonies, sex crimes, domestic violence, or stalking. For an industry built on controlled identity disclosure and pseudonymous browsing, this isn't a compliance burden—it's an operational redesign.

The identity collection problem nobody wants to discuss

Dating apps currently operate on a spectrum of identity verification. Bumble and Tinder use optional photo verification. Hinge asks for your phone number. Grindr and Feeld let you sign up with an email address and a display name, by design.

Create a free account

Unlock unlimited access and get the weekly briefing delivered to your inbox.

Register free

No spam. No password. We'll send a one-time link to confirm your email.

SB 598 would collapse that spectrum into a single model: full legal identity collection, cross-referenced against state and federal criminal databases, for every single user. The operational implications are staggering. Platforms would need to integrate with background check providers—likely Checkr, Sterling, or HireRight, the incumbents in employment screening.

According to industry pricing, basic criminal checks cost $20–40 per search. Even if platforms negotiate volume discounts down to $5 per user, that's $5 in customer acquisition cost before a single swipe happens. For free-tier-dominant apps, that's a unit economics death sentence.

But cost is actually the simpler problem. The harder one is what happens to platforms whose entire value proposition is discretion. Grindr's 13.5 million quarterly active users include people in 70 countries, many of whom use the app precisely because it doesn't require government documentation.

Feeld, Ashley Madison, and the dozens of kink, polyamory, and alternative relationship platforms exist because they offer privacy and pseudonymity. SB 598 doesn't regulate those platforms more heavily. It makes their core product illegal in California.

Why the industry lost the argument years ago

Match Group has been here before. In 2020, the company told investors that mandatory background checks would be 'security theatre'—a term the industry has since learned not to use in public. The argument was technically sound: background checks only surface convictions, missing unreported assaults, charges that didn't lead to conviction, and first-time offenders.

Research from the National Institute of Justice supports this. A 2019 study found that 87% of sexual assault perpetrators had no prior criminal record for sexual offences. That's the argument Match should have kept making.

Instead, the industry went quiet, and now California legislators are citing a Columbia Journalism Investigations survey showing one in three women experienced sexual assault through dating apps. The survey methodology matters here—it defined assault broadly, included non-physical harassment, and relied on self-reporting without verification—but the headline number has become regulatory fact. The window for nuanced debate closed years ago.

What compliance actually looks like

If SB 598 passes, platforms have roughly three implementation paths, none good. The first is full compliance: integrate background check APIs, collect social security numbers or driver's licence data, run checks at signup, and display conviction badges on flagged profiles. This path kills growth immediately.

Conversion rates on dating app signups are already brutal—Bumble disclosed 15% of downloads convert to active profiles. Adding a government ID upload step would cut that in half, if not further.

The second path is geofencing California. Block downloads in the state, restrict profile visibility for California IP addresses, and forfeit the market. For Match Group, which generated $1.16B in North American revenue last year, walking away from the most populous US state isn't a financial option. For smaller operators, it might be the only viable one.

The third path is non-compliance and litigation, which requires arguing in public that your platform should not have to remove convicted sex offenders—a communications nightmare regardless of the legal merits.

What nobody's modelling yet is the cascade effect. California has been the template for CCPA-style privacy laws now adopted in 11 states, and its age verification legislation is being copied across the US. If SB 598 passes, Texas, Florida, and New York will introduce versions within six months.

Dating apps wouldn't be implementing one state's background check law. They'd be implementing a fragmented national regime with conflicting standards, multiple vendor integrations, and no economies of scale.

The false security problem still hasn't gone away

The operational nightmare shouldn't obscure the underlying policy question: would this actually work? Senator Alvarado-Gil's office calls background checks 'an invaluable safety tool', but the evidence is mixed at best. Dating violence research consistently shows that most assaults are committed by people with no prior convictions.

A clean background check doesn't mean safe. A flagged profile doesn't mean dangerous. What mandatory checks do create is liability transfer.

If a platform screens users and flags convictions, it becomes responsible for the accuracy of that data, the security of the identity information it collects, and the discriminatory impact of publicising criminal history. Employment background checks are governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act precisely because they're high-stakes and error-prone. Dating app checks would operate in a regulatory vacuum with higher stakes and worse data quality.

The other problem is definitional. SB 598 requires flagging convictions for 'violent felonies', but that term varies by jurisdiction. A conviction that's a misdemeanour in one state is a felony in another. Expunged records are treated differently across databases. Juvenile offences may or may not appear.

Platforms would be running checks against inconsistent, incomplete, and often outdated data, then displaying results as if they were authoritative. Trust and safety teams are already stretched managing manual review queues, coordinating law enforcement requests, and responding to user reports. Adding background check compliance would require doubling or tripling those teams.

The valuation reckoning

The valuation implications deserve attention. Dating stocks are already trading at distressed multiples. Match is at 9x forward EBITDA, down from 18x in 2021. Bumble is at below 8x. Grindr, the market's lone bright spot, trades at 14x on the back of exceptional unit economics.

A bill that simultaneously increases CAC, reduces conversion, and adds permanent cost overhead doesn't get priced in as a one-time compliance expense. It reprices the entire category.

Senator Alvarado-Gil's legislation will move through committee hearings over the next three months. If it reaches the floor, it will pass—California's legislature has no appetite for being seen as soft on dating app safety, and the lobbying environment has shifted decisively against platforms. The question isn't whether this becomes law. It's whether the industry can build systems that comply with it without collapsing growth.

Dating apps spent a decade arguing they weren't responsible for offline safety. That argument is over. What comes next is the reckoning: platforms that collect government IDs, display criminal records, and operate as de facto surveillance systems, or platforms that exit markets rather than comply. There's no version of this where the status quo survives.