In recent weeks I have been talking with a major US newspaper in regards to a story about dating site legal issues. Today I see that a New York man sued dating website Match.com on Tuesday for misleading members by posting profiles of prospective dates who are unable to respond to any interest in them because they do not have a paid subscription. This, on the heels of True.com recently getting dinged for $1.5 million for unsavory billing practices.
For years, Match and many other sites have operated under the assumption that that consumers were not paying attention to their credit card statements or who they could and could not communicate with. Clearly-defined parameters about who members could communicate with have never been explicitly set and people, while mostly ignorant about a large percentage of what goes on in the world, tend to figure things out after a while.
It’s all about hope and flirting and heartwarming late-night cable commercials until the State Attorneys General starts looking at the dating industry with a critical eye and decides to do something. They did it in the social networking industry, is online dating the next industry to get Spitzer’d?
Match currently has approximately 1.4 million members in 24 countries. Those are the only people you can freely communicate with on the site, the other 14 million profiles are off the table, although I am not clear how Match works in all 24 countries. Notice how you don’t see people suing MiddleOfNowhereSingles.com, Match is where the money and the media is centered. You could replace Match with any number of online dating sites which are subscription-based.
This lawsuit is like the elephant in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge. Either there is a perfectly rational explanation for this or Match and the rest of the industry has some serious explaining to do.
One thing I know is that the industry itself could never self-regulate, there is simply too much money to be made and the rules of engagement are flexible and undefined. Heck, there are certain sites making north of $50 million that nobody talks about.
I can see this lawsuit as an Onion spoof. “Area Man, living in his parents basement, was like, totally bummed he wasn’t getting any responses after he emailed 100 women out to ‘go get taco’s or something.’”
Although it’s not going to be anywhere near as funny for the online dating industry if things progress as I think they will.
Related Posts
Match.com Application Available on Apple’s App StoreDating Service Lawsuit Settlements Website
True.com In Court, Again
Class action lawsuit filed against True.com
Fraud vs. Customer Service
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
Dave,
Thank you for reporting this. I’ve always wondered about both Match and eHarmony’s ads. They always indicate that it’s ok to look, check out matches, etc., but not once do they mention that’s all you can do without upgrading your membership. Most of the paid sites in the industry operate on a dual tiered members – standard members (the ones that don’t pay and have severe limitations as to what they can do on the site) and the premium members (who have full access to the site).
Based on publicly available data, less than 10% of Match’s membership can respond to an email sent to them without having to first upgrade their membership. (This is calculated by using their 15 million membership number and their paid membership number provided in their parent company’s latest 10Q). Online dating isn’t tough enough, but to have a 90% chance of the user not being able to respond to me, even if I’m their ideal match, is ridiculous.
I feel that it’s also very disrespectful to the paying clientele that don’t know the user cannot respond to them ahead of time. Of course sites like Match, Spark Networks and such would rather that the non-paying members get emails saying that “someone is interested in them.” But why not have some respect for the users that are already paying instead of trying to add on additional members.
This issue is one of the reasons that made Dating Revolution decide to only have one tier of membership. Either you’re on our site or you’re not. If you send someone an email, they will ALWAYS have the ability to respond. If they’re not a current member, their profile will not appear. Dating is tough enough, why add all kinds of additional pitfalls.
I’m very eager to hear what happens with the lawsuit, as I believe it could have far reaching ramifications throughout the industry.
Ross Felix on behalf of Dating Revolution, Inc.
That is such an interesting and informative post.
I did not know that about the dating industry. Online dating is a great way to meet people, especially in todays world where we don’t always have the time for things such as dating.
We should use online dating to our advantage by finding people that we would like to meet and then meeting with them. This will save time as the dating site will use our profile to find daters matching our profile.
Thanks for the great post :-)
It’s a terrible way to run a business. They need to be sued into non-assholery.
I’ve seen a fair share of online dating sites that give great numbers for the current profiles that they have or the number of new registered users each day. The users that aren’t subscribing and get a new message but can’t reply until they pay up is just another way to get a little bit more money. If they flag profiles as being subscribed or not then no one would want to see non-subcribers until they exhausted the other listings.
I always considered this just part of the paid online dating game and was one of the reasons I started a free alternative. The paid sites list plenty of downsides to free sites but at the very least everyone you contact can contact you back, no questions.
The eHarmony and Match.com ads seem misleading that they don’t mention the costs associated with using the service. Only being able to actually get in touch with 10% of the users listed makes it even harder on the paying members which is a disservice to them. I wonder if the automatic matching tools they have will also match you to users that aren’t subscribing?
Ross, hearing about a single tier paid site is pretty cool, I’m glad you took the chance to make that switch I’ll have to go take a look at your site.
“although I am not clear how Match works in all 24 countries”
Match is completely free for women in some countries
like
Italy http://www.it.match.com/
where they promote:
“Gratis per le donne” == “Free for women”
Match.com is free for women until 22 July 2009. The offer is valid for women living in Italy who are not subscribing to the site, have completed their profile and have a visible photo.
and also I believe free for women in many South American Countries.
In Argentina men (and women) can use Match for free with the folowing trick.
You have to create an instant messaging account like
JohnSampleBull001 at hotmaildotcom
and the username of your Match profile should be JohnSampleBull001
You have to wait 24/48 hours to have it approved, and after that you update with the phrase
“mismo nick en correo caliente” == “same nick in hot mail”
so the person who reads the JohnSampleBull001 profile knows the instant messaging account is
JohnSampleBull001 at hotmaildotcom
you can communicate for free!
another trick:
Suppose you see the argentinean Match profile of a woman whose nickname is JenniferSampleCow001
you can try the following instant messaging accounts.
JenniferSampleCow001 at hotmaildotcom
JenniferSampleCow001 at hotmaildotcomdotar
JenniferSampleCow001 at livedotcom
JenniferSampleCow001 at yahoodotcom
JenniferSampleCow001 at yahoodotcomdotar
Surely there is a 80% probability you can contact that woman because in Argentina most users have
the same nickname as the one used in their instant messaging accounts, and they mostly use MSN and Yahoo.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Fernando, here in N. America, we call that cheating. My wife is Brazilian and believes that a major reason Brazil and other countries down there are in such a mess economically, are so violent, corrupt etc. is due to a general lack of ethics that we take for granted in the 1st World.
Until that mentality changes, S. America (and the rest of the world) will always be in a mess.
Sure, we have cheating up here, but as a percentage it is tiny, relative to everyone else.
My wife lives in Canada for a reason :)
Of course, given that the topic here is about dishonesty, it kind of deflates my reasoning in the previous post, doesn’t it?:)
However, as you can see from other comments, what these sites are alleged to be doing is not considered kosher.
Please don’t pin that on just Brazil… there are hundreds of people doing that on Match.com, Jdate and the rest of them right here in the good old US of A.
The biggest issue is the following:
The sites decide to have a two tiered membership
Users find ways to game the system
Dating site hires more customer service reps to scan profiles for things like “you can find me at John456 at the hotplace”
Dating site raises membership fees to pay for the reps
More people stop paying due to the higher fees.
Rinse and repeat.
The other issue is that the customer service people don’t always care. I saw someone’s username on one of the sites was DanaAtGmail … and customer service didn’t even catch it.
Enough with the lies. There are only three legitimate solutions:
1) Free site, anyone can do anything that they want.
2) Single tier, you’re either on the site or you’re not. If you send an email, the user has the ability to read it and respond to it.
3) Dual tiered – As a free member you can respond to emails, but cannot initiate contact. Paying members can send and receive.
Dual tiered access only helps the dating sites. It’s a scam, and it’s about time someone got called out for it. I am VERY eager to follow the lawsuit.
Hopefully more will come of it than with eHarmony’s suit.
I don’t think people cheat because of a “two-tiered” system. I think they cheat because they don’t want to pay, period, no matter what the price. That is certainly been our experience.
Unlike just about every other site out there, we give newcomers the same privileges as paid ones (with a couple of small exceptions). So, they can try us for free for the specified period and send and receive as much mail as they like. If, after their trial, they think we are worth paying for, they pony up.
And, they do, in fact, a lot do, which is a major key success factor for us.
However, there is a distinct minority who don’t want to pay and code their emails, IM’s, etc to try and bypass the system. That is what we call cheating.
It has nothing to do with them cheating because of a perceived injustice by us. It is just pure dishonesty.
As we say to our members, as part of their introduction to us, would you want to date someone who is already cheating? Imagine him or her on a first date – or, worse, after you are married.
As Someone once said, “Those who are faithful in little are faithful in much”. The same is true of the opposite case.
People cheat because they’re poor and desperate. Every “first world” country would be a corrupt backwater of cheaters and misfits if their wealth were removed. Honesty in business is a luxury that most of the world can’t afford.
You’ve got it backwards. The 1st World is wealthy in large measure due to that core of honesty. Sure, people cheat more because they are poor and desperate. But, that doesn’t explain all cheating. By that rationale, no one in the 1st World would be cheating (who wasn’t also poor). Yet, we see cheating.
Certainly, it is not on the scale of the rest of the world. That is due to that largely Protestant work ethic. It is no coincidence that the richest countries (including most evenly distributed) are also from that background: Anglo and/or Nothern European, for the most part.
I like to tease my Brazilian, Catholic wife about that:)
“The 1st World is wealthy in large measure due to that core of honesty. ”
Huh? You think there is a difference in honesty among the different worlds, let alone it’s the reason for wealth? You ought to read a psychology textbook. As the Depeche Mode song says, “people are people”.
“That is due to that largely Protestant work ethic.”
Racism?
I think the proof is in the pudding.
The problem with 1st World (among other things) now is political correctness gone awry, such as your ridiculous comment about racism.
You won’t identify yourself. Hidism?
If we’re going to continue discussing this topic, why not base it on the facts at hand, or facts that can actually be proven instead of racist / anti (fill in the blank) country comments.
The issue is simple: Create a method of cheating a system and people will do it. People will phreaking phones back in the 80s because they could. Movies like Wargames exist people people enjoyed hacking.
Also, who is to blame? The company for establishing a dual tiered system that only benefits them or the people who found ways to circumvent it. The members are certainly liable, as it breaks the TOS policy. The company may also be liable due to what could be construed as false advertising (time will tell on that one).
So — let’s bring the discussion back to point. There’s plenty to discuss here without taking the discussion places that it never should have gone.
And finally, if you’re going to make inflammatory comments at least have the nerve to back it up with your identity.
My apologies for typos in the previous post — perhaps responding to a blog from my cell phone en route to the office wasn’t the best idea.
However, I do look forward to a continued (on point) discussion.
Well said, Ross, even if you criticized me, as well:) I don’t hide behind non-linkable nicknames like some. I’d be happy to debate this with you elsewhere, esp after being accused of not using facts – and being labelled a racist (you used that term incorrectly, actually).
I made my point about the subject at hand after your first post.
Sam,
I wasn’t accusing or labeling anyone in particular of anything – not my style. And Sam, while I happened to have made my point after your last post, it was not directed at you, merely a group of discussions that had gotten way off topic. Plus, there was a comment that was very offensive that was made but fortunately removed.
My point was simple: Let’s discuss the topic at hand instead of suggesting that the problem is limited to members of a specific ethnic, socioeconomic, country of origin, etc. There are plenty of other forums to debate the evils of first, second and third world countries and who causes which ills in the world. This isn’t it in my humble opinion.
Ross,
I think I know the post to which you referred – I noticed it and wrote to Dave about it. Glad he removed it. I am guilty of starting to take things off on a tangent (it did relate to the issue at hand, as part of the issue is honesty) and then people ran with it. But, hey, spices things up a bit;-) Dating industry chat can be a little dry at times. You can bet there are a ton of people reading this blog who never post. But, they keep reading:)
But, your point is taken. ‘Nuff said!
Sam
Has anyone seen the actual “complaint.” Is it that Match keeps old profiles on there (people who haven’t logged in, let’s say in two years), or that fact that they have “15 million members” but only “1.4 million are paying members?”
I’d say that those are two very different points. Old profiles — well, that’s easy, it does tell you the last time they logged on — and if that’s the case, I’d say there’s no case. If it’s about the fact that 90% of the members are unreachable (unless they upgrade their account), I’d say that would potentially be a stronger case.
Thoughts?
Very good point,
Most members are not paying or just join and forget about it.
Some people also do not return or deactivate their account.