Dating app subscriptions come with promises: a guarantee of a free period if you do not meet anyone, an easy way to cancel, and a working account once you have paid. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought a case against Match Group over how these promises were made and kept. This guide sets out what the FTC alleged and what the settlement announced on 12 August 2025 requires. It covers the United States only; UK readers should see the UK guide to paying for a dating app. The account below reflects allegations in a complaint and terms of a proposed order, not findings of wrongdoing, and it is general information, not legal advice.
The case in brief
The FTC sued Match Group, Inc. in September 2019 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Match Group owns Match.com, Tinder, OkCupid, PlentyOfFish and other dating services. The FTC’s notice on the complaint said the Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” the law has been or is being violated, and that the case would be decided by the court. On 12 August 2025 the FTC announced that Match Group, Inc. and Match Group, LLC had agreed to pay $14 million and to a proposed order to resolve the charges. The FTC said stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.
What the FTC alleged about the six-month guarantee
The FTC alleged that Match deceptively induced people to subscribe to Match.com by promising a free six-month subscription if they did not “meet someone special”, without adequately disclosing the requirements for claiming it. According to the 2019 complaint, subscribers had to secure and maintain a public profile with a photo approved by Match within the first seven days of purchase, message five unique Match.com subscribers per month, and use a progress page to redeem the free six months during the final week of the initial six-month period. The FTC alleged that consumers were often unaware of these terms and were billed for a further six months instead of receiving the free period.
What the FTC alleged about billing disputes
The complaint alleged that because of Match’s advertising, billing and cancellation practices, consumers often disputed charges through their financial institutions, and that Match then banned those users from accessing the services they had paid for. The 2025 announcement describes this as unfairly suspending the accounts of users who unsuccessfully filed billing disputes, keeping their money without providing the paid-for services.
What the FTC alleged about cancellation
The FTC alleged that Match violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) by failing to provide a simple method for stopping recurring charges. It said each step of the online cancellation process, from password entry to the retention offer to the final survey pages, confused consumers and prevented many from cancelling. The complaint quoted Match employees describing the process as “hard to find, tedious, and confusing”, and said that members often thought they had cancelled when they had not.
What the proposed order requires
According to the FTC’s 2025 announcement, the order requires Match to:
- pay $14 million, which the FTC will use to provide redress to injured consumers;
- clearly and conspicuously disclose the terms of its six-month guarantee and any other material restrictions, limitations or conditions on guarantees, and not misrepresent them;
- refrain from retaliating against, threatening or taking adverse action against consumers who file billing disputes, and from denying them access to paid-for goods or services; and
- provide simple mechanisms for consumers to cancel their subscriptions.
The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order was 3-0.
The fake love interest allegation
The 2019 complaint also alleged that Match used “fake love interest” advertisements. According to the FTC, when non-subscribers with free accounts received likes, emails or messages, Match sent emailed ads urging them to subscribe to see who had contacted them, and millions of contacts that generated these notices came from accounts the company had already flagged as likely to be fraudulent. The FTC also alleged that between June 2016 and May 2018, consumers bought 499,691 subscriptions within 24 hours of receiving an advertisement touting a communication that Match’s analysis judged fraudulent. The broader romance scam picture is covered in the site’s guides to how to spot a romance scammer and fake profile red flags.
Practical points for US subscribers
- Read the exact conditions of any “guarantee” before paying, including deadlines and activity requirements.
- Keep screenshots of the terms shown at purchase and of the cancellation confirmation.
- Check card or bank statements after cancelling to confirm renewals have stopped.
- The FTC says bad business practices can be reported at ReportFraud.ftc.gov, and the guide to steps after paying a scammer in the United States explains the reporting routes.
The bottom line
The FTC’s case shows what US regulators look at in dating subscriptions: whether a guarantee’s conditions are disclosed clearly, whether a paying user can be locked out for disputing a charge, and whether cancelling is genuinely simple. The August 2025 proposed order, as the FTC describes it, requires clear guarantee disclosures, no retaliation for billing disputes and simple cancellation, with $14 million for redress. The allegations in the 2019 complaint remain allegations, and users should still read terms and check statements.
Sources
- FTC, “Match Group Agrees to Pay $14 Million, Permanently Stop Deceptive Advertising, Cancellation, and Billing Practices to Resolve FTC Charges” (12 August 2025)
- FTC, “FTC Sues Owner of Online Dating Service Match.com for Using Fake Love Interest Ads To Trick Consumers into Paying for a Match.com Subscription” (25 September 2019)