’s Alleged Deceptive Marketing Practices Lead to Federal Action Under FTC Act/ROSCA

September 27, 2019

deceptive-marketing Faces Deceptive Marketing Allegations

On September 25, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a Complaint against Match Group Inc. (“Match Group”), parent company of, seeking a permanent injunction and civil penalties.  The FTC’s Complaint alleges that engaged in the use of deceptive marketing practices “to induce consumers to subscribe to and keep them subscribed,” and that these practices violated, among other laws, the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”) and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”).

Why is the FTC going after Match Group?

Match Group Leads a Growing Online Dating Industry

Online dating continues to be a rapidly expanding industry.  In 2018, nearly 50 million adults in the United States reported engaging with online dating sites/apps at one point or another.  With more than 1,500 dating apps, the industry generated $3 billion in revenue in 2018 alone.  Within this industry, Match Group is the clear leader.  Match Group controls approximately 25% of the online dating market, offering such popular services as Tinder, OKCupid, Plenty of Fish, and  With respect to specifically, the primary driver of revenue is user subscriptions. When a subscription is paid, that subscriber can create a profile and is granted access to messaging tools on the platform.  Non-subscribers to can still create a user profile, but cannot either access messages sent to them or send messages themselves.’s Alleged Deceptive Marketing Practices

The FTC’s complaint alleges that has engaged in deceptive marketing practices in violation of the FTC Act and ROSCA by:

  • Allowing fake communications regarding love interest to drive subscriptions. The FTC contends that allowed communications from illegitimate or fraudulent accounts to generate deceptive advertisements and sell subscriptions, exposing consumers to certain scams.  Such scams include:
  • “Romance scams,” where a perpetrator poses as a potential suitor, establishes trust, and persuades the person to give or loan money;
  • “Phishing scams” aimed at stealing a consumer’s personal information;
  • Promoting dubious or unlawful products/services;
  • “Extortion scams,” in which a perpetrator induces a consumer to send compromising videos or photos and then threatens to send them to family and friends unless the consumer pays.

Specifically, according to the Complaint, when an illegitimate account messaged a non-subscriber, the non-subscriber was notified via an email communication from  To view the content of that message, the non-subscriber was told that she/he needed to subscribe to  However, would seldom disclose that the message possibly came from a fraudulent account.  On the contrary,’s email alert typically represented that the message was sent from a legitimate account. The FTC alleges that between June 2016 and May 2018, received nearly 500,000 new subscriptions within 24 hours of non-subscribers receiving messages from fraudulent accounts.

  • Knowingly exposing consumers to scams. The FTC alleges that com knowingly exposed consumers to fraud from accounts that it knew were likely engaging in fraud. often screens users that send communications through the site/app in order to identify accounts that may be perpetrating scams.  However, between 2013 and 2018, the complaint explains that delivered email communications from fraud-flagged accounts to non-subscribers while withholding them from subscribers.  Despite its ability to protect its customers, did not extend these protections to non-subscribers.  According to the FTC, between June 2016 and May 2018, delivered approximately 4 million messages to non-subscribers that would have otherwise been flagged as fraudulent.
  • Misleading “guarantee” programs. Until mid-2019, guaranteed a free 6-month subscription renewal if the subscriber failed to “meet someone special.” However, the FTC contends that many of the requirements for redeeming the guarantee were either purposefully inconspicuous – such as acceptance of the “Guarantee Extension” within seven days – or deceptive.  For those who successfully navigated these program requirements, consumers needed to answer a question to proceed: “Did you meet anyone during your 6-month guarantee program?”  Because many consumers technically met other people during this time, but not “someone special,” they would answer “yes.”  Answering “yes” disqualified them from receiving the guarantee.
  • Purposefully confusing customers regarding cancellation. Subscriptions for are automatically renewed until they are cancelled.  In order to cancel, a subscriber must locate the Cancel Subscription hyperlink and cancellation tab, input her/his password, click through two pages of survey questions, until the subscriber reaches the cancellation confirmation page.  com executives admitted that the process was “convoluted and confusing” and that it takes “up to 7 or 8 clicks . . . to turn off subscriptions if you can ever figure out how to do it.”
  • Terminating accounts of users after billing disputes. Given the above deceptive marketing practices, consumers often disputed their bills. However, when prevailed in those disputes, it often terminated the applicable consumers’ access to their account or services, despite having months left on their subscriptions.

Repercussions for Online Dating Sites

Given the growing market for online dating, this suit may have far-reaching implications for the other 1,500 platforms in the space.  If successful, the FTC will effectively put these companies on notice that employing deceptive marketing practices and policies to take advantage of consumers looking for love will be scrutinized and the perpetrators held accountable under the FTC Act and ROSCA.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic or require assistance in connection with consumer online dating and marketing compliance for your business, please e-mail us at, or call us at (212) 246-0900.

Attorney Advertising

The material contained herein is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney.

Similar Blog Posts:


David Klein

David Klein is one of the most recognized attorneys in the technology, Internet marketing, sweepstakes, and telecommunications fields. Skilled at counseling clients on a broad range of technology-related matters, David Klein has substantial experience in negotiating and drafting complex licensing, marketing and Internet agreements.

Trending Topics

data CIPA law Swigert law consumer protection data on cumputer screen

Swigart Law Group CIPA Demands

Readers of this blog likely know about the wave of consumer privacy litigation directed at online companies’ collection of consumer data. A litany of these

Read More »