Match Group settles FTC charges for $14 million over deceptive dating practices

Match Group Inc. has agreed to pay $14 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges alleging the company used deceptive advertising practices and problematic billing procedures on its Match.com dating platform. According to the FTC complaint filed September 25, 2019, and the settlement announced August 12, 2025, the online dating giant engaged in multiple questionable practices between 2013 and 2019.

The settlement represents a significant enforcement action in the digital advertising space. It demonstrates regulatory scrutiny of subscription-based services and their marketing tactics, particularly relevant as deceptive advertising practices continue to face increased regulatory attention across industries.

Core allegations against Match Group

According to the FTC complaint, Match Group maintained five primary deceptive practices to induce consumers to subscribe to Match.com and retain subscriptions. The company sent misleading advertisements promoting communications from users it had identified as potentially fraudulent. Between 2013 and mid-2018, as many as 25-30 percent of Match.com members registering daily were using the platform to perpetrate scams, including romance scams and phishing attempts.

The complaint detailed how Match.com delivered communications from fraud-flagged users to nonsubscribers while withholding them from existing subscribers until completing fraud reviews. From June 2016 to May 2018, approximately 87.8 percent of accounts whose messages were withheld were later confirmed fraudulent by Match Group's internal processes.

During this period, Match Group delivered approximately 4 million communications that would have been withheld had the 2.25 million recipients already been subscribers. More than 250,000 of those consumers subscribed to Match.com within 24 hours of receiving these emails. According to FTC analysis, consumers purchased 499,691 subscriptions within 24 hours of receiving advertisements promoting fraudulent communications from June 2016 to May 2018.

Misleading guarantee practices

Match Group offered a "match GUARANTEE" promising consumers a free six-month subscription if they purchased a six-month subscription but did not "meet someone special" during the initial period. However, the company failed to adequately disclose numerous requirements consumers had to meet to claim the guarantee.

These requirements included securing and maintaining a public profile with a primary photo approved by Match Group within the first seven days of purchase. Consumers also had to message five unique Match.com subscribers each month and use the company's progress page to redeem the free six months during the final week of the initial subscription period.

The complaint noted that even when consumers were aware of the guarantee acceptance requirement, many were confused by the question "Did you meet anyone during your 6-month guarantee program?" A Match Group customer service executive acknowledged this question was "obviously misunderstood" by many consumers, who interpreted it as asking whether they met anyone at all rather than "someone special."

Between 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. In contrast, Match Group billed nearly 1 million consumers who purchased a guarantee for additional six-month packages when the first period expired.

Cancellation and billing issues

The complaint highlighted Match Group's "confusing and cumbersome cancellation process" that caused consumers to believe they had canceled subscriptions when they had not. According to a 2015 internal presentation cited in the complaint, Match Group's own executives described the cancellation flow as "hard to find, tedious, and confusing." The presentation noted that "Members often think they've cancelled when they have not and end up with unwanted renewals."

To cancel a Match.com subscription, consumers had to complete several steps including clicking through retention offers, answering two pages of survey questions with follow-up questions, and reaching a final cancellation confirmation page. The process required "over 6 clicks" according to internal documentation.

Match Group also terminated accounts of consumers who disputed charges through financial institutions and lost those disputes. Until mid-2019, when Match Group prevailed in billing disputes, it often denied consumers access to their Match.com accounts and deleted their profiles despite consumers having paid for remaining subscription time.

The company estimated that 60 percent of chargebacks occurred within one month of the disputed charge and 82 percent within the first two months. This meant consumers who disputed charges and lost often had remaining time in their 3-, 6-, or 12-month subscriptions but were banned from accessing services they had purchased.

Settlement terms and implications

Under the settlement order filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Match Group must pay $14 million, which the FTC will use to provide redress to injured consumers. The company is permanently restrained from misrepresenting material restrictions, limitations, or conditions related to guarantees for dating services.

Match Group must clearly and conspicuously disclose that consumers registering for guarantees must secure and maintain public profiles with approved photos within seven days of purchase, message five unique subscribers monthly, and use progress pages to redeem free subscriptions during final weeks of initial periods.

The settlement prohibits Match Group from retaliating against consumers who file billing disputes by denying access to paid services. The company must provide simple mechanisms for consumers to cancel subscriptions and cannot suspend accounts during billing disputes unless refunds are issued.

For the marketing community, this case highlights the importance of transparent advertising practices and clear disclosure of material terms. Recent regulatory actions demonstrate increased FTC scrutiny of digital advertising practices, particularly regarding data handling and consumer protection.

The settlement also reflects broader trends in subscription service regulation. Google's recent updates to dating advertising policies indicate heightened platform awareness of content quality and certification requirements for dating service advertisers.

Compliance and monitoring requirements

The settlement establishes comprehensive compliance monitoring for 10 years. Match Group must submit annual compliance reports detailing business activities, subscription processes, and guarantee implementations. The company must also report structural changes affecting compliance obligations within 14 days.

The FTC retains authority to request additional compliance reports, conduct depositions, and inspect documents. Representatives may pose as consumers to test compliance with settlement terms. The court maintains jurisdiction for enforcement purposes.

The settlement covers Match Group's online dating services operating under trade names including Match.com, BlackPeopleMeet, BLK, Chispa, Upward, Yuzu, Salams, The League, HER, Stir, OurTime, OkCupid, Archer, and Plenty of Fish across 14 associated websites.

This enforcement action demonstrates the FTC's continued focus on subscription service practices and advertising transparency. Companies offering subscription-based services should review their marketing materials, cancellation processes, and billing dispute procedures to ensure compliance with consumer protection requirements.

Timeline

• 2013: Match Group begins deceptive practices including promoting fraudulent communications and misleading guarantee advertising
• 2015: Internal Match Group presentation describes cancellation process as "hard to find, tedious, and confusing"
• June 2016 - May 2018: Match Group delivers approximately 4 million communications from fraud-flagged accounts to nonsubscribers, generating 499,691 subscriptions within 24 hours
• Mid-2018: Match Group stops sending advertisements based on fraudulent communications
• Mid-2019: Company ends practice of denying account access to consumers who lose billing disputes
• September 25, 2019: FTC files complaint against Match Group in Northern District of Texas
• August 12, 2025: Settlement announced with $14 million penalty and permanent injunctions

PPC Land explains

Fraudulent Communications: Messages sent by scammers posing as legitimate Match.com users to deceive other members. According to the FTC complaint, between 2013 and 2018, as many as 25-30 percent of daily Match.com registrants were using the platform to perpetrate various scams including romance fraud, phishing schemes, and extortion. Match Group's internal systems identified these communications as likely fraudulent but still used them in marketing materials to encourage subscriptions.

Match Guarantee: A promotional offer promising consumers a free six-month subscription extension if they purchased a six-month subscription but failed to "meet someone special" during the initial period. The guarantee included numerous undisclosed requirements including photo approval within seven days, messaging five unique subscribers monthly, and accessing a progress page during the final week to claim the benefit. Between 2013 and 2016, only 32,438 consumers received the promised free extensions from nearly 2.5 million guarantee purchases.

Subscription Billing Disputes: Formal challenges consumers filed with their financial institutions regarding Match Group charges. The company estimated 60 percent of chargebacks occurred within one month of disputed charges. Until mid-2019, Match Group retaliated against consumers who lost these disputes by permanently terminating their accounts and deleting profiles, effectively denying access to services they had already purchased.

Cancellation Process: The multi-step procedure required to terminate Match.com subscriptions, which company executives internally described as "hard to find, tedious, and confusing" in 2015 presentations. The process required over six clicks through retention offers, survey questions with follow-up prompts, and multiple confirmation pages. Many consumers believed they had successfully canceled when they had not, resulting in unwanted subscription renewals.

Negative Option Feature: A billing practice where consumer silence or failure to take affirmative action is interpreted as acceptance of continued service and charges. Match Group's subscriptions automatically renewed for equivalent terms unless consumers actively canceled. The Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act requires simple cancellation mechanisms for such arrangements, which the FTC alleged Match Group failed to provide.

Consumer Redress: Financial compensation provided to harmed consumers using the $14 million settlement funds. The FTC will administer this redress program to reimburse consumers who were deceived by Match Group's practices. Any remaining funds after direct consumer compensation will be used for related consumer protection efforts or deposited to the U.S. Treasury as civil penalties.

Deceptive Advertising Practices: Marketing tactics that mislead consumers about material facts affecting their purchasing decisions. The FTC alleged Match Group's advertisements failed to disclose that promoted communications came from identified fraudulent accounts and that guarantee offers contained numerous restrictive requirements. These practices violated Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibiting unfair or deceptive commercial practices.

Progress Page: An internal Match.com tracking system consumers had to access during the final week of their six-month guarantee period to claim free subscription extensions. Many consumers were unaware this page existed or that accessing it was required. The page included a confusing question asking if consumers "met anyone" rather than clearly asking about meeting "someone special," leading to misunderstandings that disqualified legitimate claims.

Account Termination: Match Group's practice of permanently deleting consumer profiles and denying service access when consumers lost billing disputes with their financial institutions. This retaliation occurred even when consumers had remaining time in paid subscription periods. The settlement permanently prohibits such retaliatory actions and requires Match Group to maintain account access during dispute proceedings.

FTC Enforcement: The Federal Trade Commission's regulatory authority to investigate and prosecute unfair or deceptive business practices affecting interstate commerce. The Match Group case demonstrates the FTC's focus on subscription service transparency, billing practices, and digital advertising standards. The 10-year compliance monitoring period reflects the agency's commitment to ensuring lasting behavioral changes in corporate practices.

Summary

Who: Match Group Inc. and Match Group LLC, operators of Match.com and other dating platforms, settled with the Federal Trade Commission

What: $14 million settlement resolving charges of deceptive advertising, misleading guarantee practices, and problematic billing procedures on Match.com

When: The complaint was filed September 25, 2019, based on practices from 2013-2019, with settlement announced August 12, 2025

Where: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, with practices affecting consumers using Match.com services primarily in the United States

Why: FTC alleged Match Group used fraudulent communications to generate subscriptions, misrepresented guarantee terms, created difficult cancellation processes, and retaliated against consumers who disputed charges