Match.com Connected Daters To Fake Accounts To Boost Subscriptions, US Regulators Say (theverge.com) 174
The FTC has filed a lawsuit against Match Group alleging that the company connected Match.com daters with fake accounts in an effort to get them to subscribe. "The case hints at the murky line between genuinely helpful notifications and those that prey on people's curiosity to monetize a service," reports The Verge. From the report: Non-paying Match.com users cannot view or respond to messages they receive on the service, but whenever they receive one, Match.com emails them to let them know, encouraging them to subscribe to see the message. The FTC claims that, in hundreds of thousands of instances, Match.com notified daters of messages even after the company detected that the account sending the message was fraudulent. Once these people subscribed, they opened the message to see that the user had already been banned or, days later, would be banned for on-platform fraud, the lawsuit says. When these users then complained to Match.com or tried to get their money back, Match.com denied any wrongdoing.
The FTC claims this behavior led to 499,691 new subscriptions, all traced back to fraudulent communications, between June 2016 and May 2018. The lawsuit also claims that these automatically generated email alerts were often withheld from paying subscribers until Match.com completed a fraud review. It still allegedly automatically sent the advertisement email to non-paying users, however. The FTC also claims that Match.com made canceling subscriptions incredibly difficult -- canceling requires over six clicks, according to the complaint. Match.com also allegedly locked people out of their accounts after they disputed charges, even if they lost their dispute and had time remaining in their subscription. The FTC is seeking monetary relief for consumers who lost money from the company's practices.
The FTC claims this behavior led to 499,691 new subscriptions, all traced back to fraudulent communications, between June 2016 and May 2018. The lawsuit also claims that these automatically generated email alerts were often withheld from paying subscribers until Match.com completed a fraud review. It still allegedly automatically sent the advertisement email to non-paying users, however. The FTC also claims that Match.com made canceling subscriptions incredibly difficult -- canceling requires over six clicks, according to the complaint. Match.com also allegedly locked people out of their accounts after they disputed charges, even if they lost their dispute and had time remaining in their subscription. The FTC is seeking monetary relief for consumers who lost money from the company's practices.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Murky line? It's fraud! (Score:4, Interesting)
Dating sites are creating the fake accounts themselves and then in small print tell the users, sometimes only when they sign up, that fake accounts exist on the site to help them to "experience the most" of the site.
All Match.com has to do is show that the users were warned about the existence of the fake accounts.
Re:Murky line? It's fraud! (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect Match.com created those fake accounts for the specific purpose of enticing men to sign up for a paid account, thinking there were lots of available women there when there aren't. Apparently, the FCC suspects that, too.
At least Match.com will allow women to actually sign up. Some of the even shadier dating sights won't, because actual women interfere with the scams.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect Match.com created those fake accounts for the specific purpose of enticing men to sign up for a paid account, thinking there were lots of available women there when there aren't.
LOL, of course they did. Pretty much every dating site and app in the world does this.
Browse with a "free" account and shitloads of 'women' be there, dying to contact you. Sign up and you'll get a couple of bogus emails or PMs from them.
When your subscription is about to lapse, suddenly loads of women will again come out of the woodwork, begging to date you...until you renew your subscription, that is.
This trick is as old as dirt (but still works like a charm).
From the fraudulent-behavior dept? (Score:2)
Bad economic models - Bad behaviors (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I'm not really interested in this kind of website these days, and I'm sure my wife will complain if she ever finds out I said anything, but... Speaking hypothetically about a time long, long ago, I would have wished that there was one of these matchmaking websites that had a business model that was oriented around long-term relationships. In other words, the website would get the highest returns as money if and only if the marriage lasted. ADSAuPR, atAJG.
As regards this particular scandal (in a world overrun by scandal), my understanding is that their revenue came from subscriptions, and most of the subscriptions came from perpetual shoppers of the male variety. In that environment intermittent reinforcement is the obvious strategy to keep the suckers in the game. Because most of the shoppees of the female variety don't appreciate the hopper shoppers, there's going to be a shortage on that side, and I am not at all surprised Match.com wound up cheating to create a little bit of extra reinforcement. In fact, I'm quite confident they ran analyses to estimate exactly how long a perpetual shopper would keep subscribing without any results and just how much of a non-physical result would be sufficient to keep those subscription dollars coming.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you pull that off? As soon as the couple exchanges that first message it's all over for the matchmaker. They can trade phone numbers and cut you out of the loop at any time.
Re: (Score:2)
You pay us a $500 bond.
You get it back if you marry someone you *didn't* meet on our dating site, or if you don't marry for 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
You pay us a $500 bond.
You get it back if you marry someone you *didn't* meet on our dating site, or if you don't marry for 10 years.
Oh yes, I'm sure they'll be beating down your door to hand over $500 to some sleazy internet dating site.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't really thought about the topic for a while, but the story has reminded me...
My thought was that it should be based on a combination of two things: (1) Satisfaction, and (2) Ongoing support for long-term relationships. And don't forget that these are just old pie-in-the-sky speculations. For simplicity, I'm going to use "you" for the person who would be operating such a website in what follows.
Of course you see the problem is that satisfaction is purely subjective, and people can always lie about t
Re: (Score:2)
You pay us a $500 bond.
You get it back if you marry someone you *didn't* meet on our dating site, or if you don't marry for 10 years.
Interesting idea, though my thought-experimental version was different. My concern is that your approach might create a disincentive against honesty, while I'd prefer to focus on rewarding honesty with ongoing support. I decided to describe my approach below because that version also addresses the concerns of the reply to your idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your expression of curiosity. I decided the best place to respond was at the end of the current thread, so please look below.
Re: (Score:2)
You just love to come up with overly complicated and impractical monetary schemes don't you?
Tell us, what incentive does the married couple have to continue to pay after they get married? What fr
Re:Bad economic models - Bad behaviors (Score:4, Funny)
Provide first, pay later only works where the thing can be repossessed. And a marriage cannot.
If Philip K. Dick were still around, he could show us how that would work.
Satisfaction can only be measured afterwards (Score:2)
I almost missed your comment among the trollage. However, since I skip over that part, I don't know what the context is.
However, in another extremely peculiar small world effect, it turns out that I just acquired a Philip K Dick novel that I'd never read, so I can say that he is still around in that sense. I've only read 8 of his books, but I just found A Maze of Death .
Re: (Score:2)
Context was a scenario where people signed a contract with a matchmaking agency so that the matchmaking service was free, but if they got married they'd owe the company a lot of money. It seems like a very PKD sort of scenario that matchmaking enforcers might be out there, trying to collect on owed funds from matched couples who are trying to hide their relationship, up to and culminating with their marriage being annulled and/or their kids being taken away and never being allowed to see each other, if they
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, thanks for clarifying, and my thoughts on this topic are on the non-troll branch of the discussion. From your summary, there doesn't seem to be any overlap.
I could dig back to see who you were talking to, but even that identity is not visible now, and my basic policy on trolls is to ignore them as soon as they are identified (though some of them seem to "like" playing with my "I'm ignoring you" macro). I actually think some of them can stimulate creativity, but it's only an accidental side effect of t
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't know about the trollage that I am commenting upon."
We buy that.
It's 6:17 am in Japan, and resident Shannon Jacobs is bragging about his long night of sexually assaulting people in comments. Still sad.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-2
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
It's 2:40 am in Japan, and resident Shannon Jacobs is following his usual routine of sexually assaulting people in the middle of the night. Sad.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-5
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
It's 2:12 am in Japan, and resident Shannon Jacobs is following his usual routine of sexually assaulting people in the middle of the night. Sad.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-9
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
It's 2:39 am in Japan, and resident Shannon Jacobs is following his oddly consistent routine of sexually assaulting people in the middle of the night. So sad.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-12
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
It's 2:15 am in Japan, and resident Shannon Jacobs is following his oddly consistent routine of sexually assaulting people in the middle of the night. So sad.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-16
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
And in a stunning reversal, Shannon Jacobs sexually assaults people at 2:23 pm like... like... absolutely nobody else posting replies to comments. Anywhere.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-18
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
Returning to form, Shannon Jacobs resumes sexually assaulting people at 2:08 am JST like... absolutely nobody else posting replies to comments. Anywhere.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-21
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
It's 2:26 am in Japan, and resident Shannon Jacobs is following his oddly consistent routine of sexually assaulting people in the middle of the night. So sad.
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't know about the trollage that I am commenting upon."
We buy that.
It's 2:17 am in Japan, and resident Shannon Jacobs is bragging about his usual routine of sexually assaulting people in the middle of the night. Still sad.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-4
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
It's 2:44 am in Japan, and resident Shannon Jacobs is following his usual routine of sexually assaulting people in the middle of the night. Sad.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-7
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
It's 2:16 am in Japan, and resident Shannon Jacobs is following his usual routine of sexually assaulting people in the middle of the night. Sad.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-10
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
It's 2:40 am in Japan, and resident Shannon Jacobs is following his oddly consistent routine of sexually assaulting people in the middle of the night. So sad.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-11
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
It's 2:14 am in Japan, and resident Shannon Jacobs is following his oddly consistent routine of sexually assaulting people in the middle of the night. So sad.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-15
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
And in a stunning reversal, Shannon Jacobs sexually assaults people at 2:19 pm like... like... absolutely nobody else posting replies to comments. Anywhere.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-19
Re:Sexual assault of Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
Returning to form, Shannon Jacobs resumes sexually assaulting people at 2:11 am JST like... absolutely nobody else posting replies to comments. Anywhere.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-22
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
It's 2:27 am in Japan, and resident Shannon Jacobs is following his oddly consistent routine of sexually assaulting people in the middle of the night. So sad.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-1
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
For someone posting comment and criticism 50+ times per day on Slashdot and Ars (are you really that lonely and isolated?), Shannon Jacobs certainly can't take criticism well.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-3
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
It's 2:43 am in Japan, and resident Shannon Jacobs is following his usual routine of sexually assaulting people in the middle of the night. Sad.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-6
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
It's 2:14 am in Japan, and resident Shannon Jacobs is following his usual routine of sexually assaulting people in the middle of the night. Sad.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-8
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
It's 2:38 am in Japan, and resident Shannon Jacobs is following his oddly consistent routine of sexually assaulting people in the middle of the night. So sad.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-13
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
It's 2:16 am in Japan, and resident Shannon Jacobs is following his oddly consistent routine of sexually assaulting people in the middle of the night. So sad.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-14
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
And in a stunning reversal, Shannon Jacobs sexually assaults people at 2:12 pm like... like... absolutely nobody else posting replies to comments. Anywhere.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-17
Re:Sexual assault by Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
Returning to form, Shannon Jacobs resumes sexually assaulting people at 2:02 am JST like... absolutely nobody else posting replies to comments. Anywhere.
Public masturbation of 946416 (Score:2)
Z^-20
Re: (Score:3)
Gesundheit!
The need to be needed (Score:2)
These dating sites are merely monetizing a person's need to be in relationship. I imagine they'd be willing to bait your hook with two worms to get you enrolled.
The FTC also claims that Match.com made canceling subscriptions incredibly difficult -- canceling requires over six clicks, according to the complaint.
Shit. That's the difficulty equivalent of getting shed of an embedded stalker.
Re: (Score:3)
More than six clicks (Score:2)
So I guess they contend requiring seven clicks or more to complete a task on a website is worthy of a lawsuit. Comcast is in trouble if the plaintiffs win this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Six clicks is at least how many it takes to set up Windows 10 without a Microsoft Account. The lawsuit is more about the fraud.
This is common practice on dating services (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hey now! Jodie's been through a lot of failed relationships with attractive men who cheated on her and treated her poorly, so maybe now she's looking for (cough) an average guy who will treat her like a princess.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of fake/bot accounts on these dating services. Depending on the service they can either be easy to spot or nearly impossible. For services that require profile questions, the fake accounts will just answer the minimum number. For services like Tinder that are just a picture and a bio, it's much harder to tell.
I-I mean my male friends get likes but the girls never respond and then unmatch.
What's happening here is that people are swiping right on everyone and then culling their matches. It's more efficient than carefully looking at each bio before making a decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The bots are great. One asked for my picture and I sent it Hitler, and it wouldn't stop telling me how hot I am.
Some chicks might dig the "Hitler" look ....
Re: (Score:2)
The bots are great. One asked for my picture and I sent it Hitler, and it wouldn't stop telling me how hot I am.
Try sending it an archived goatse.cx photo. Or tubgirl. Collect all the responses saying how hot it is and then write an article and expose the fraud. Now that would be something.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought women liked the bad boys.
Re: (Score:2)
I think to see uses the business model of charge for infidelity don't they?
Like it's free but you can't control who sees you if you don't pay.
Re:This is common practice on *IAC* dating service (Score:2)
This is a common practice on InterActiveCorp [wikipedia.org] owned dating sites.
The fact you are seeing similar conflict of interest in policy of Tinder as happens on Match should not be a surprise given they both owned by the same parent company.
IAC also owns Plenty Of Fish and OkCupid. So when someone because disgusted by Match's predatory behavior and sign up for an alternative, in reality they are just ditching paying for one IAC owned dating site for yet another IAC owned dating site.
Re: This is common practice on *IAC* dating servic (Score:2)
Oh yeah, I realized that a long time ago. What happens is that when you sign up on OKC, it'll give you two to four fake "likes". I'm 90% sure that these are "deleted" profiles as opposed to AI generated images. They'll even try to purposely match you with these fake accounts and encourage you to message them knowing full well you won't get anything back.
The only "legit" match I ever got there was a person who wanted $500 for compensated dating. Dating sites don't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I met my wife there. - Before we were married, I should add.
The Internet Economy Has Become A TOILET (Score:2)
The first thing Match did when buying OK Cupid was (Score:5, Informative)
Was delete this article https://www.gwern.net/docs/psy... [gwern.net] by the mathematicians who founded OK Cupid. It demonstrated that the statistical improbability of the membership claims made by many dating sites such as E-Harmony and Match.
Match, being a public company, had to publish information about their business. With 20,000,000 profiles, of which there were 1.3 million paying subscribers, the odds that you were trying to connect with profiles that were even active were really, really small. Of course, Match and the other web sites never delete inactive profiles so by now the odds are even smaller.
Re: (Score:2)
Match and the other web sites never delete inactive profiles so by now the odds are even smaller.
Last-login-date is an available search criteria, so it is easy to exclude inactive profiles.
Ignore matches if not subscribed (Score:2)
Too many dating services do this. If you get matches while not subscribed you are probably better off treating it as bullshit and focus on other dating opportunities.
Not just Match, others do the same thing (Score:3)
Years ago in leading up to a class reunion, for a while they wanted us to sign up for a classmates.com account. At the time it was free, or you at least had more functionality with it. They changed around the membership levels or something, and wanted you to pay for the same level of service. After a while, you'd start getting bogus emails saying "hey, someone wants really to connect with you.", but you can only see who if you get a paid account.
Re: (Score:2)
They could have been Facebook. Idiots.
I met my wife through match.com (Score:2)
Re: I met my wife through match.com (Score:2)
I met mine there as well. Met several others in person, never ran into any scams really.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I met my wife through match.com (Score:4, Insightful)
I refuse to use those paid dating sites. I can get refused by women on the free dating sites just as easily.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here (met some decent girls and end up marrying one - we're about to celebrate our 15th wedding anniversary). However, that was back in 2002. It seems things might have changed a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
I also met my spouse on Match.com.
I was using the site for about a year. I went on about 25 first dates, and 4 second/third dates.
Overall, it was a very positive experience, but it was 17 years ago, so things may have changed.
Did any users notice? (Score:3)
Is Slashdot a good place to ask this question?
US corporations (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well known (Score:2)
This was common knowledge to users as far back as 15 years ago, when I was using it. I knew both men and women who were using match back then that would get the same profiles "matched" with them despite having completely disparate interests and desired traits in a partner. The "subscribe to meet me" type solicitations were ubiquitous and certainly not limited to recent business practices.
Pretty much every dating site I've ever used has similar tactics.
***all*** dating sites/services are questionable (Score:2)
I've never given much thought about dating sites, not surprised to read about match.com. I sometimes get these popup ads or spam email from sites. I get suspicious when they portray hot looking women desperate for men (really?). Some time ago I took a screenshot of an ad "meet Russian girls!" amusingly alongside a article of supposably new MiG fighter.
Years before the internet I was talking with someone that consulted through a dating site, I was shocked he paid nearly $30K (1990 dollars), not sure if he
Fake accounts? (Score:2)
Match.com notified daters of messages even after the company detected that the account sending the message was fraudulent
Dollars to donuts sez match.com created the bogus accounts in the first place