MORE

Yet Another Federal Deceptive Trade Practices Suit Filed Against Match.com. Wink!

From time to time we'll come across federal suits filed by scorned subscribers to Preston Center-based Match.com, all of whom more or less say the same thing: The dating service is nothing but a tease, its "winks" little more than hollow promises of hook-ups between prospective partners -- one of whom may not be an actual, you know, person.

Just last January we espied such a suit, which claimed that "well over half of the profiles on [Match.com's] site belong to inactive members who have cancelled their membership or allowed their subscriptions to lapse and/or are fake and fraudulent profiles posted by scammers and others." A records search this morning reveals that the class action, which alleges violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, is still alive and well in Dallas federal court: The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint earlier this month, which follows, and the dating service has yet to file its response -- though a request to dismiss will likely come in mid-July.

A "false pretenses" class action was also filed in Oakland in March. Court records show that plaintiffs and Match.com are presently arguing over discovery, with the unhappy customers demanding, among many other things, "the identities and number of people who have paid for access to Match.com." Match.com doesn't want to turn over the docs. A conference call with a mediator was scheduled for yesterday.

Speaking of: On Tuesday, another federal suit was filed in Dallas naming the dating service as a defendant. It follows, but long story short: Two Texas men claim, among other things, that Match.com is bilking subscribers by lying about how emails are sent to and read by (or not read by, as the case may be) non-subscribers to the service. They also allege that Match.com creates "bogus online profiles as evidenced by the number of profiles of allegedly different Members containing identical photographs and identical phrases."

And, says the suit: "In a further effort to retain Subscribers, Match.com further deceives and exploits Subscribers by calling them and impersonating other Members, although obviously never agreeing to meet the Subscribers for dates." Jump. The suits are on the other side. Cross my heart.

Barlow and Harken v Match

Amended Match Class Action


Sponsor Content

Newsletters

All-access pass to top stories, events and offers around town.

Sign Up >

No Thanks!

Remind Me Later >