Australia's Federal Court today found that eHarmony, Inc. breached the Australian Consumer Law across five categories of misleading conduct in its online dating subscriptions, ruling that premium memberships rolled into 12-month automatic renewals at prices that could reach five times the initial subscription. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission brought the case in September 2023. Penalties, consumer redress and other orders will be decided at a later date.

The judgment closes the liability phase of proceedings the ACCC filed in the Victoria District Registry of the Federal Court under file number VID708/2023. According to the ACCC, the court found that eHarmony made misleading representations to consumers about the pricing, renewal and duration of its online dating memberships, both on its website and inside its mobile applications.

Five separate strands of conduct were found to contravene the law. The court identified misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to offering free dating when a consumer could not engage in ongoing communication with other people for free; the automatic renewal of memberships; one-month memberships, when the minimum period consumers could sign up for was six months; consumers being able to cancel their subscription early when they could not; and stating monthly subscription prices which did not mention an additional mandatory fee to pay monthly.

A sixth finding sits apart from those rulings. The court also found that eHarmony had failed to display as a single price the minimum total amount a consumer would pay for their subscription alongside statements of how much a membership would cost per month. That is a distinct obligation under the Australian Consumer Law, and it does not depend on whether any consumer was actually deceived.

"Dating platforms are an important part of Australians' social lives," ACCC Commissioner Luke Woodward said.

The renewal mechanism at the centre of the case

The most financially consequential finding concerns what happened after the initial subscription period expired.

According to the ACCC, eHarmony was found to have engaged in conduct liable to mislead the public when it gave consumers the false impression that the subscription period for its premium membership was only for the selected 6, 12 or 24 months. In fact, those premium subscriptions automatically renewed for a lock-in period of 12 months, at prices which could be up to five times higher than the price of the initial subscription, or hundreds of dollars more than the consumer initially agreed to.

The lock-in is the part that compounds the price effect. Where renewal occurred, consumers often needed to keep paying for the full 12 months, even if they complained to eHarmony immediately afterwards. A consumer who had signed up for a discounted six-month term could therefore find themselves committed to a further year at an undiscounted rate.

The concise statement filed in 2023 sets out the contractual basis. Under clauses 2(c) and 13 of eHarmony's standard form agreement, premium membership renewed automatically after the initial period, by default for 12 months.

Disclosure of that clause is where the case turns. According to the ACCC, eHarmony did not prominently disclose the automatic renewal, instead displaying the terms of the automatic renewal in small font late in the purchase process and in its terms and conditions.

The concise statement describes the sequence in more detail. The subscription page displayed only the prices and periods of the initial subscription period of 6, 12 or 24 months. It did not display the fact that the subscription was subject to automatic renewal, the renewal period, or the subscription price during the renewal period. The only pre-purchase disclosure of the renewal period and renewal price appeared in small font in a paragraph of text late in the purchase process. On the mobile version of the website and in the applications, that paragraph appeared after the consumer had already entered payment details and selected a payment frequency. The alternative route to the same information was a hyperlink to the terms and conditions, contained in a paragraph of text late in the purchase process or, in some cases, at the bottom of pages in small font.

Price presentation and the single price rule

The second cluster of findings concerns how prices appeared on screen.

According to the ACCC, eHarmony failed to specify the minimum cost a consumer would pay for a membership as a single figure, as required under the Australian Consumer Law. The subscription page stated a "from $xx/month" figure, but this was not accompanied by the total cost consumers were signing up for in the initial subscription period, for example for 12 months. That single price was only stated in small font late in the purchase process.

The concise statement records that the per-month figure appeared in large, bold font for the 6, 12 and 24 month options, while the total price payable for the initial period was disclosed only on a later screen. Layout differed by device. On the desktop version, the disclosure appeared on the payment details page after the consumer had chosen a payment frequency. On the mobile website and in the applications, the payment page was split across two screens, and the total price payable was disclosed after the consumer had entered payment details on a previous screen and chosen a payment frequency. In each case the disclosure sat in small font within a paragraph that also carried cancellation and renewal information and a link to the terms and conditions.

Separately, the "from $xx/month" construction itself was found to mislead. According to the ACCC, by displaying prices in that form, eHarmony was found to have made misleading representations that the plans could be purchased by paying the stated amount on a monthly basis, when in fact a mandatory additional fee applied if consumers paid for their membership monthly. When the regulator filed in 2023, it stated that consumers who paid monthly were charged $3 more per month than the advertised price.

One finding runs in eHarmony's favour. The court found that from July 2024, when additional disclosures were added, the relevant pages no longer represented that subscription plans could be purchased by monthly payments of the stated amount.

"The Court's ruling underscores that when businesses advertise a price for a subscription divided into instalments," Mr Woodward said, describing the requirement that the minimum total cost also be displayed clearly and prominently.

What the sign-up screens showed

The ACCC published a sequence of images with its announcement showing the process of signing up to an eHarmony premium subscription on a laptop. According to the regulator, the specific applicable discount and colour scheme varied over time, but each image is broadly representative of how each step appeared from 2019 to 2024.

The subscription page in those images carries a banner advertising 40% savings on all premium memberships, and presents three tiers named Premium Light, Premium PLUS and Premium EXTRA. Each tier lists feature bullets covering unlimited photo viewing, unlimited messaging, visibility of who has viewed a profile, distance search and a detailed personality profile. Regular prices of $54.90, $39.90 and $29.90 per month appear alongside discounted figures, with one option labelled as a 12-month plan and another flagged as the most popular plan.

The remaining images document the payment page, the cursor placed over the payment frequency control, and a payment frequency option selected. That progression is the visual record of the disclosure timing at issue: frequency selection is the step after which the additional monthly fee and the total price became visible.

The free dating representation

The first strand of the case concerns the top of the funnel rather than the checkout.

At least since 5 November 2019, according to the concise statement, the eHarmony website included public pages stating that consumers could engage in free dating, representing that members could engage in ongoing communication with other people on the platform for the purposes of developing a romantic relationship free of charge. The pages did not prominently disclose or clearly indicate that only a basic membership was free, or that consumers had to subscribe to a paid premium membership to access key features.

What a basic membership actually permitted is set out precisely. Registration followed completion of a compatibility quiz, described by the ACCC in 2023 as running to 80 questions. Basic members could view blurred, unrecognisable profile photos; like other profiles; receive one text message from a premium member and send one reply; send a single virtual smiley face symbol; and send image-based prompts described as icebreakers. Sending text messages to members, reading all messages from other members and viewing recognisable profile photos required a paid upgrade.

One month plans and the cancellation claim

Two further representations concern duration and exit.

From at least around September 2019 to around May 2023, some public pages on the eHarmony website displayed statements to the effect that consumers could subscribe to premium membership for one month. Subscriptions were available only for periods of 6, 12 or 24 months, and it was not possible for a consumer to subscribe for one month.

From at least August 2019 to 27 October 2021, a public page displayed a statement that "there is still an opportunity to withdraw after signing up if you have second thoughts", under a heading promising a trial before purchase and no pressure to sign up. Cancellation was not effective until the next renewal date. Consumers who sought to cancel after signing up were not relieved of the obligation to pay for the remainder of the 6, 12 or 24 month period, nor were they refunded any amounts paid for the unused portion.

The ACCC's pleaded grounds map each representation to specific provisions of the Australian Consumer Law, contained in Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

The free dating representations were pleaded under sections 29(1)(b) and 29(1)(g), covering representations about quality and about performance characteristics or benefits, together with section 34 on conduct liable to mislead the public and section 18 on misleading or deceptive conduct. The minimum price representations were pleaded under section 29(1)(i), addressing representations with respect to price, and section 18. The failure to specify a single price was pleaded under section 48, which requires a price to be specified in a prominent way and as a single figure. The automatic renewal conduct was pleaded under sections 34 and 18, and the one month representation under sections 29(1)(b), 34 and 18. The cancellation representation was pleaded under section 29(1)(m), covering representations concerning the existence or effect of a right, and section 18.

The concise statement was prepared by Norton Rose Fulbright Australia and settled by O Bigos KC and C Cunliffe of counsel, and was lodged on 7 September 2023.

Why the case matters for advertisers and platforms

The findings translate into a set of constraints on how subscription products are presented in advertising and in checkout flows, and they arrive at a moment when the ACCC has been building an enforcement record on exactly these mechanics.

The single price finding is the most portable. Section 48 applies to representations about an amount that forms part of the consideration for a supply, which captures the per-month figure used across subscription marketing. The ruling places the minimum total cost in the same visual frame as the instalment figure, rather than several screens later. That has direct implications for landing page design, for responsive search ad copy that carries a monthly price, and for any creative that advertises a rate divided into instalments.

The renewal finding sets a second constraint. The court treated the absence of prominent pre-purchase disclosure as conduct liable to mislead, not merely as a contractual detail governed by terms and conditions. The presence of the clause in the standard form agreement did not cure the presentation.

Australia's regulator has been running this line of enforcement across sectors. In February 2026 the ACCC named subscription traps and dark patterns among its 2026-27 compliance and enforcement priorities, alongside misleading pricing and manipulative online practices.

The active caseload has followed. The commission filed against JustAnswer LLC in September 2025 over an advertised AU$2 joining fee that concealed monthly charges, and the Federal Court ordered the company to pay $10 million in July 2026. In October 2025 the ACCC filed proceedings against Microsoft over alleged concealment of a lower-priced subscription tier from approximately 2.7 million Australian customers. In June 2026 the regulator sued Amazon over five unfair contract terms in Prime subscription agreements. A month later, eDreams paid $59,400 over free trial charges.

Pricing representations outside subscriptions have drawn parallel action, including $79,200 from HSK United over strikethrough pricing and refund statements in June 2026, and a Black Friday advertising enforcement sweep in November 2025 targeting countdown timers and site-wide discount claims.

Dating services specifically have been under scrutiny in more than one jurisdiction. Match Group settled Federal Trade Commission charges for $14 million in August 2025 over deceptive advertising, account suspensions and cancellation obstacles. In March 2026 the FTC filed against OkCupid and Match Group Americas over the transfer of user photos to a facial recognition company. Category economics have tightened at the same time: Bumble reported a 21% fall in paying users in Q1 2026 while cutting selling and marketing spend from $59.7 million to $27.0 million year on year.

Media buyers in the category also operate under platform-level gatekeeping. Google introduced mandatory certification for dating and companionship advertisers in December 2024, extended the compliance deadline to 9 April 2025, and in August 2025 narrowed the geographical restrictions to 17 countries.

Comparable rules are converging elsewhere. The FTC finalised its click to cancel rule in October 2024, requiring cancellation to be as simple as sign-up and mandating clear disclosure of terms before billing information is collected; industry groups including the Interactive Advertising Bureau challenged it within weeks. In the United Kingdom, the Department for Business and Trade confirmed in April 2026 that secondary legislation will implement a new subscription contracts regime, anticipated to commence in spring 2027. In the European Union, the Digital Fairness Act consultation drew organised opposition from advertising trade bodies in July 2025 on grounds of regulatory duplication.

Prior notice and remaining steps

The ACCC has pointed to a history of engagement with the sector. In 2016 the commission consulted eHarmony and others when developing its best practice guidelines for dating websites, which address the importance of providing consumers with upfront and transparent information.

According to the ACCC, the action followed hundreds of complaints from consumers about charges from eHarmony received since November 2019.

eHarmony, Inc. is a United States company that provides dating services in Australia through the eHarmony website and application. When the case was filed, the ACCC described the main function of the Australian subsidiary as receiving payments from Australian consumers, and identified eHarmony as part of the German-American ParshipMeet Group.

The relief originally sought included penalties, declarations, injunctions, consumer redress and costs. The court will decide on penalties, redress and other orders at a later date. No penalty figure has been set.

Timeline

Summary

Who: The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, with statements from ACCC Commissioner Luke Woodward, brought proceedings against eHarmony, Inc., a United States company that supplies dating services in Australia and was described by the regulator at filing as part of the ParshipMeet Group. The concise statement was prepared by Norton Rose Fulbright Australia and settled by O Bigos KC and C Cunliffe of counsel.

What: The Federal Court found that eHarmony breached the Australian Consumer Law through misleading or deceptive conduct across five areas covering free dating claims, automatic renewal, one-month membership claims, early cancellation claims and monthly pricing that omitted a mandatory fee, and separately found a failure to display the minimum total subscription cost as a single price. Premium subscriptions automatically renewed for 12 months at prices up to five times the initial subscription. The court found that from July 2024 the relevant pages no longer represented that plans could be bought at the stated monthly amount.

When: The findings were published on 25 August 2026 under ACCC release number 99/26. The conduct dates from at least 1 November 2019. The concise statement was lodged on 7 September 2023.

Where: Federal Court of Australia, Victoria District Registry, file number VID708/2023. The conduct concerned the eHarmony website and mobile applications as accessed by consumers in Australia.

Why: The ACCC pursued the case after receiving hundreds of consumer complaints and has identified subscription traps and manipulative online design as enforcement priorities for 2026-27. The ruling sets out how instalment pricing and automatic renewal terms must be presented at the point of sale rather than late in the purchase flow, and penalties, consumer redress and further orders remain to be determined.