In August, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a $14 million settlement with Match Group, Inc. and Match Group, LLC (collectively, “Match”), the parent companies of online dating platforms Match.com, OkCupid, PlentyOfFish, and other dating sites. In addition to monetary relief, the settlement includes significant injunctive provisions aimed at addressing alleged deceptive marketing and unfair billing practices. This resolution marks a significant development in the FTC’s ongoing efforts to monitor and regulate subscription-based services in the digital space.
This settlement resolves a complaint filed by the FTC in 2019. The FTC alleged that Match violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act and Section 4 of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”). According to the complaint, Match engaged in a range of deceptive and unfair practices that harmed consumers:
- Deceptive Use of Fraudulent Communications to Induce Non-Subscribers to Purchase Paid Subscriptions
The FTC alleged that Match sent non-subscribed users notifications—such as alerts about “likes” or “favorites”—purporting to be from real users, to induce recipients to purchase paid subscriptions to view or respond to the messages. However, many of these communications were allegedly from fraudulent or scam accounts, a fact not disclosed to consumers. The FTC claimed that between June 2016 and May 2018, nearly 500,000 subscriptions were purchased within 24 hours of receiving such misleading advertisements.
The FTC also alleged that Match knowingly disseminated millions of email communications from “fraud-flagged” accounts to non-subscribed users, while withholding the same communications from paying subscribers pending fraud review. Citing that 90% of these accounts were ultimately confirmed as fraudulent, the FTC claimed that consumers who purchased subscriptions in response to these communications were exposed to heightened risks of romance scams and other fraudulent schemes.
2. Deceptive Use of Fraudulent Communications to Induce Non-Subscribers to Purchase Paid Subscriptions
The FTC’s complaint alleged that Match.com engaged in deceptive advertising by promoting a “free” six-month subscription for users who did not “meet someone special” during an initial six-month paid term. The offer failed to clearly disclose that eligibility for the subscription was subject to numerous conditions. Instead, these conditions were listed on a separate rules page that was accessible only by clicking a “Learn more” hyperlink accompanying the offer language. The complaint also identifies several additional deceptive practices related to the six-month guarantee, including the use of non-prominent language in the “Learn more” section requiring consumers to visit a separate “progress page” to track their compliance with program rules, the failure of that page to remind users that they were required to upload an approved photo within seven days of purchasing the subscription, and the misleading phrasing of a required eligibility question—“Did you meet anyone during your 6-month guarantee program?”—which many consumers allegedly misinterpreted as referring to any interaction rather than meeting “someone special.” As a result of these practices, the FTC claimed that few consumers received the free six-month subscription and instead were billed for another six-month term.
3. Burdensome Cancellation Procedures
The FTC also alleged that Match used confusing and burdensome cancellation practices to deter consumers from successfully ending their subscriptions. According to the complaint, the cancellation process required users to navigate a cumbersome multi-step flow, where consumers had to click through multiple pages and answer survey questions designed to impede cancellation. An internal Match presentation reportedly described the cancellation flow as “hard to find, tedious, and confusing.” The FTC further cites thousands of consumer complaints from individuals who reported being charged even after they believed they had successfully cancelled their subscriptions.
4. Unfair Termination of Account in Response to Billing Disputes
The FTC further alleged that Match unfairly denied access to paid subscription services for consumers by terminating consumers’ accounts and deleting their profiles when they lost a billing dispute, even if they had remaining time in their subscriptions. Although Match’s Terms of Use warned that no refunds would be provided in such cases, the FTC alleged this was not clearly disclosed to consumers because it was reportedly buried in fine print.
Beyond the $14 million settlement payment, the order requires Match to clearly and conspicuously disclose the terms of its guarantees and use simple cancellation methods for its subscriptions. Match is also barred from retaliating against consumers for filing billing disputes, including by withholding access to goods or services consumers have already paid for.
If you have any questions concerning the material discussed in this blog post, please contact the members of our Advertising and Consumer Protection Investigations practice.