September 25, 2019 |
FTC Sues Match Group, Alleging Multiple Violations of FTC Act & ROSCA |
WASHINGTON, D.C. â The Federal Trade Commission has filed a complaint against Match Group, Inc., the owner of Match.com, PlentyOfFish, Tinder, OKCupid and other dating sites, alleging that âthe company used fake love interest advertisements to trick hundreds of thousands of consumers into purchasing paid subscriptions on Match.com,â among other violations. âWe believe that Match.com conned people into paying for subscriptions via messages the company knew were from scammers,â said Andrew Smith, Director of the FTCâs Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a press release issued Wednesday. âOnline dating services obviously shouldnât be using romance scammers as a way to fatten their bottom line.â In its complaint, the FTC alleges that since âat least 2013,â Match maintained five âdeceptive or unfair practices to induce consumers to subscribe to Match.com and to keep them subscribed.â âFirst, until mid-2018, Defendant sent consumers misleading advertisements that tout communications from persons Defendant identified as potentially fraudulent users of Match.com and led consumers to believe that the communications are from persons interested in establishing a dating relationship with them,â the FTC stated in its complaint. âSecond, until mid-2018, Defendant exposed consumers to the risk of fraud by providing recent subscribers access to communications that Defendant knew were likely to have been sent by persons engaging in fraud.â The FTC also alleged that until the middle of this year, Match âguaranteed certain consumers a free six-month subscription renewal if they fail to âmeet someone specialâ but failed to disclose the requirements of its âguaranteeâ adequately.â Match also allegedly âmisled consumers with a confusing and cumbersome cancellation process that causes consumers to believe they have canceled their subscriptions when they have notâ and until the middle of 2019, âwhen consumers disputed charges relating to any of these practices and lose the dispute, Defendant denied consumers access to paid-for services.â In its complaint, the FTC also depicted Matchâs various dating services and platforms as hotbeds of third-party fraud â fraud the FTC alleges Match knew about and didnât take measures to stop. âBetween 2013 and at least mid-2018, consumers who were considering purchasing a Match.com subscription were generally not aware that as many as 25-30 percent of Match.com members who registered each day were using Match.com to perpetrate scams,â the FTC alleged in its complaint. âThese scams include romance scams, stealing consumersâ personal information through âphishing,â promoting dubious or unlawful products or services, and extortion scams, in which a scammer will induce a consumer to send the scammer compromising videos or pictures of the consumer that the scammer then uses to extort money from the consumer by threatening to send the materials to the consumerâs friends or family.â According to the FTCâs complaint, even in the instances in which Match had removed a member because of suspected fraud, the company didnât notify consumers of that suspicion, or inform consumers the member they received a message from had been deleted for that reason. âWhen consumers subscribe to view these communications, they either gain access to the fraudulent communication or receive a notification stating that the profile that sent the communication is âunavailable,ââ the FTC stated in its complaint. âThis outcome depends upon whether consumers subscribe to Match.com before or after Defendant completes its fraud review process: if the consumer subscribes before the review is completed, the consumer receives the communication that was sent; if Defendant has already completed its review process and deleted the account as fraudulent before the consumer subscribes, the consumer will receive a notification that the profile is âunavailable.ââ The FTC added that in ânumerous instances, Defendant has not notified consumers that the Match.com users contacting them were removed from Match.com due to the high likelihood that these users were seeking to defraud consumers.â âWhen consumers contact Defendant to complain about subscribing to Match.com only to receive a notification that a senderâs account is âunavailable,â Defendant has replied, âPlease be assured, Match.com does not send members misleading notifications, e-mails or winks professing romantic interest. We have too much respect for our members to ever compromise their trust. If you have received communications from members with profiles that are not immediately available, the member may have temporarily hidden their profile.ââ In its complaint, the FTC faulted Match for the practice of continuing to deliver messages from users the company already suspected to be engaged in fraud pending the completion of an internal fraud review, stating that without this practice, âthe vast majority of these fraud-flagged Match.com users would never have been able to contact their intended recipients.â âBetween June 2016 and the beginning of May 2018, for example, approximately 87.8 percent of accounts whose messages Defendant withheld were later confirmed by Defendant to be fraudulent,â the FTC added in its complaint. In its complaint, the FTC also zeroed in on what the Commission called Matchâs âuse of deceptive guaranteesâ in marketing its services and sites. âUntil mid-2019, consumers who visit the Match.com website were offered a âmatch GUARANTEEâ if they purchased a six-month subscription,â the FTC stated in its complaint, noting that while the offer didnât disclose that the guarantee is subject to any additional terms or conditions, a âlearn moreâ link led to a rules page which listed several requirements the consumer had to satisfy to receive the guarantee. âConsumers who continued reading after the numbered list of requirements would find that Defendantâs website included a âprogress pageâ tracking their compliance with the guaranteeâs rules that consumers must access to comply with the offerâs terms,â the FTC stated in its complaint. âConsumers who view the progress page were reminded that they were required to create a public profile with a photograph and to start a conversation with at least five Match.com members each month, but not that they must provide an approved photo within the first seven days of subscribing or that the members they contact must be subscribers.â Consumer confusion as to how they could establish and maintain eligibility for the guarantee led to a major discrepancy between the number of subscribers who were potentially subject to the guarantee, compared to the number who tried to redeem it. âBetween 2013 and 2016, consumers purchased nearly 2.5 million subscriptions subject to the guarantee but only received 32,438 free six-month subscription packages during the same period,â the FTC said in its complaint. âIn contrast, Defendant billed nearly 1 million consumers who purchased a guarantee for an additional six-month package when the first six-month period expired.â In its complaint, the FTC asked the court to enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (âROSCAâ); award monetary civil penalties from Match for every violation of ROSCA; award âsuch relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting from Defendantâs violations of the FTC Act and ROSCA;â and to award to the FTC âthe costs of bringing this action, as well as such other and additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper.â The FTC press release can be read here. The FTCâs full complaint against Match is available here. |