Comments on: Match.com Class Action Lawsuit, Complaint Alleges Fraud

By: HARV SCHNEIDER

HARV SCHNEIDER — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:47:57 +0000

I stopped my subsciption to Match.com over one year ago. I have not been able to find a way to communicate or demand my profils is removed from the site. I also cannot get the to stop sending profile anouncements. Is there no way to force these guy to withdraw one’s profile and the constant advertising?

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:22:59 +0000

Match.com is definately committing fraud. Once you resign from the site, which everyone should do, your profile remains. Match does not make it clear that you have resigned from the service, rather they use you to enhance their service without telling you. It gets better especially since youre paying $40 per month. They should provide some security on the site and protect against scammers from North Africa and other places. Match just takes your money and doesnt care what happens after they get it. Try to contact Match customer service after the north african scam. I got some guy in Nicaragua who said he reported to “no one” at Match but had little power to do anything to assist. The bigger scam is Match.com any scams resulting from the site are secondary.

By: McGinn Drops "Humiliating" Lawsuit Against Match.com | The Law Professor

McGinn Drops "Humiliating" Lawsuit Against Match.com | The Law Professor — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:04:44 +0000

[...] amended complaint) as well as the memorandums of law.It appears that the “lovelorn” McGinn, who filed a $5 million class-action suit against Match.com due to his unanswered emails by Match members, has dropped the lawsuit due to an extensive [...]

By: Heidi

Heidi — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:06:24 +0000

Well, for someone who has driven herself ( and possibly THE guy) crazy suspecting a man who seems perfectly reliable and honest and yet seems to log on to Match daily, this is certainly food for thought.
What a cruel practice.

By: thelawprofessor

thelawprofessor — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:28:29 +0000

Marcus – in the US, Match lists inactive members up to three weeks. I am in complete agreement with you about whether Match and other services should be punished for some of its questionable business practices. I completely agree with you – my questioning the quality of the complaint is that it doesn’t reflect even the understandable genuine feelings of frustration, anger and being cheated! Here in the US we play to the press and emotions. Too many times it becomes a circus for the absurd. And within all of this exaggerated behavior, I find it amusing that the biggest gripe of all is missed in the complaint – the part where the mere click to open an email from Match apparently sends a message to their server to change a user’s status to current and “active.” Talk about misleading… Great points, truly. Glad to have you here from across the globe!

By: Marcus

Marcus — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:16:33 +0000

Actually, Match.Com lists members inactivity at three weeks not two. Certainly that is the case in the UK. However, this is a minor point. Any member who has not been active within a three week time frame is almost certainly a non-paying member. That means they cannot reply to emails unless they subscribe. Whether you are a subscriber or just simply a member is determined by whether you are physically paying for the service. Match.com claims a member base of 15 million (quite impressive) yet it’s subscriber base is quoted at just 1.3 million. That means at any given time 13.7 million members cannot respond to either emails or winks, sent by subscribers, unless they pay. Paying subscribers simply do not know which individuals are valid subscribers or just simply members. The two/three week inactivity flag shown against someones profile is facile because, should a member (non paying subscriber) click on an email sent to them their inactivity level is reduced showing them to be more active than they really are.
Quantifying the level of emotional distress that Mr McGinn suffered is certainly a grey area. But certainly a compelling argument can be put forward that if an individual invested a very significant proportion of his time and labour in the pursuit of finding love, believing in all honesty that the objects of his affection were viable people with which to strike up a potential relationship, to then discover they were nothing of the sort. They were people who could never respond to him unless they were prepared to pay for the privelge, would he not feel a degree of anger and an overwhelming sense of feeling cheated. This is not about being rejected as it’s being portrayed by some commentators, it’s actually far deeper than that.

By: thelawprofessor

thelawprofessor — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 03:34:53 +0000

Marcus – Match has it listed that a woman hasn’t logged in for at least two weeks. I don’t disagree that there definitely is an element of fraud in all of these online services. I’m all for uncovering what lurks at Match, JDate and several others which have suspect statistics if not virtual fraud. But the deep emotional distress he claims from not getting an answer back? If he couldn’t get any responses, I’d have to wonder what he’s writing! Perhaps I take these claims with a grain of salt because, in the legal business, absurd exaggeration doesn’t seem to be optional, it’s practically required! Point taken.

By: Marcus

Marcus — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 02:53:47 +0000

I don’t think you should make light of the emotional suffering of a guy who has been actively misled into thinking he’ll find love, or at the very least has the potential to find love, but discovers that potential is merely an illusion designed to fleece him out of his money.
By keeping all profiles active, whether you are a paying member or not, then Match.Com is surely creating a false illusion that the potential for finding love is much greater than it really is. Match.Com should be forced to reveal the true scope of active members (those who you can physically reply to emails) relative to those who cannot. Lovelorn individuals can then decide beforehand whether or not they want to subscribe to a the dating website whose non-active members may outnumber active members by as much as 5 to 1. We need greater transparency from Match.com… we need to know whether ones emotional commitment in finding love can be better spent elsewhere. Forcing Match.com to come clean as to exactly how many of it’s members are viable and potential partners is surely the first step. Mocking this guy for his severe emotional distress and anxiety at being rejected is not helpful.

By: Sandy Johnson

Sandy Johnson — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 02:54:10 +0000

I’m sure it is BS. I did not meet anyone I was interested in the first 6 mos. A few good conversations, or so I thought. Then nothing. Never heard from that guy again. That happened a few times, it’s like they get you hooked, they say how much they want to meet, then they disapear. I have a picture of a really good looking guy and his first e-mail to me was about 20 lines long, telling me he liked my profile and is going back into the service for 6 months, and when he gets back he will look me up. How convenient ~ that will be after my free 6 mos. is up, so if I am really interested, I would need to join again. RIGHT ! I am still on my 6 free months and I have not had any more mail. I even wrote Match and complained during my 1st 6 mos. that there were some guys, same picture – different name OR there were pictures of the same guy on 2 or 3 pages of my 18 / 36 pages. If they have all these new members every day like the commercials say – why would the same pictures come up. Then they have even sent me womens profiles that were interested in me ~~ I HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN MEN ! One of my friends that knew I was on Match, tried to look up my profile and my pictures are not even on the site now that I am in my free 6 months. All in all, I feel MATCH, is not what they say it is.

By: Phillip House

Phillip House — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:11:45 +0000

I finally got tired of receiving several contacts each day from women on match.com even though I only signed up a three day free trial which I cancelled after only two days. I finally called their customer service number and told them that I felt it was false advertizing to suggest that I was still an active member. I feel this sends the wrong message to people when you don’t respond, simply because you can’t respond to explain that you are no longer an active member. I agree with the class action lawsuit, this needs to be changed for fairness to active members and those looking for a relationship. I was smart enough to delete my picture before I cancelled my membership but match.com prefers those remain so they can be used as bait to attract new members. If only active members were profiled the on-line dating would be a more positive experience.