Recommended Posts

(Reuters) - Internet daters aren't likely to get a date in court with Match.com.

The online matchmaking service, a unit of IAC/Interactive Corp., won the dismissal on Friday of most of a lawsuit that contended the company duped consumers into believing it had millions of subscribers when more than half were inactive, fake or scammers.

U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay in Dallas ruled that Match.com had not breached its user agreements, finding the pacts do not require it to remove dormant or inaccurate profiles.

The language of the agreements "in no way requires Match.com to police, vet, update the website content" or verify the accuracy of profiles on the site, the judge wrote.

Jeffrey Norton, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the law firm Newman Ferrara, in an e-mail said, "we are reviewing the decision and considering our options."

A spokesman for Match.com said it was pleased with the ruling, adding that it had always maintained that the allegations were "unfounded."

The lawsuit, which had sought class-action status on behalf of Match.com subscribers, was filed in 2010 by several users of the site.

The judge dismissed the plaintiffs' claims of breach of contract, and asked the plaintiffs to explain why he should not also toss out claims of deceptive trade practices brought under Texas law. He gave them until August 27 to respond and said if they did not he would dismiss that claim as well.

more

People in my town should be able to sue then. I live in Windsor Ontario and pretty much all dating sites give you just people from Detroit since its only a semi small bridge away.

The online matchmaking service, a unit of IAC/Interactive Corp., won the dismissal on Friday of most of a lawsuit that contended the company duped consumers into believing it had millions of subscribers when more than half were inactive, fake or scammers

So it's okay to lie now?

Only in America can they get away with this. Anywhere else in the world this would be considered misleading and deceptive advertising by leading consumers to believe something is true regardless of the fine print that weasels their way out of supporting the claim.

Only in America can they get away with this. Anywhere else in the world this would be considered misleading and deceptive advertising by leading consumers to believe something is true regardless of the fine print that weasels their way out of supporting the claim.

Like how ISPs around the world advertise unlimited internet access without actually offering it?

Like how ISPs around the world advertise unlimited internet access without actually offering it?

Like that, in Australia the goverment (ACCC) has come down hard on ISPs who have tried to sell "unlimited" internet with limits in the fine print.

I think you'll find that the world is made up of more than just Australia and the US ;)

I comment from what I am most familiar with. I know other countries have regulation to deceptive advertising. It must take a truly unique country where a case makes it to court and the JUDGE throws it out based on the intentionally ambiguous statements being upheld as a legal means to avoid liability. That's what deception is. From what I have read online, this is a fairly common practice in the US, and as such US consumers take all advertising material with a grain of salt than expecting reasonable claims to be actually true. We are blessed in Australia to have a consumer rights department who actually do their job and have the balls to go after large companies (like Apple) when they make misleading claims.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Yes, it was amusing at the time because even then dbrand was well known for stealing the designs of products from other companies. That’s what they do.
    • Didn’t Dbrand once complain that Casetify was ripping off their designs a well? seems pretty bad of them to try and get around Valve’s copyright this way with that in mind.
    • Dbrand thought they could get away with this Steam Machine case, Valve disagreed by David Uzondu Image via Dbrand Dbrand has cancelled its highly anticipated Companion Cube enclosure for the Valve Steam Machine, which it teased back in November of last year with a concept render and sign-up page, because it did not ask Valve for permission first before manufacturing the case. According to Dbrand, it took the "backwards approach" of building the product first before asking for permission from the copyright holder. Seven months of work went into the project, requiring over a thousand engineering hours from the design team. Workers developed forty-four sets of injection molding tools, making a unique mold for each sub-component of the crate. When the Companion Cube went live on Monday last week, it, according to Dbrand, quickly became the second-fastest-selling product in the company's fifteen-year history, racking up orders for hundreds of thousands of units. Customers eagerly bought the $129.95 deluxe edition or the bare-bones $99.95 version, which the manufacturer cheekily branded as the "Poverty Cube". It was around this time that the legal eagles at Valve descended on the accessory maker with a formal demand. The developer pointed out that the iconic block design remains protected intellectual property from the game Portal, so unlicensed sales had to stop. Dbrand said that all its pleas to salvage the project with the Valve team, including proposals to run a properly licensed release under official terms "with their blessing", fell on deaf ears, so it had no choice but to obey and remove every trace of the product from the internet. If you bought the enclosure, the company said that banks will process your refund by the end of this week, but if it still hasn't arrived in your account by then, you should not hesitate to contact support. The Steam Machine itself is a high-performance console that Valve designed directly to bring PC gaming into the living room. It was announced on 12th November 2025 (the same day Dbrand announced the Cube) and runs on the Linux-based SteamOS, the same OS that powers the Steam Deck. As for the price, due to the shortage of memory and storage chips, the hardware cost landed much higher than people were expecting, starting at $1,049 for the 512 model (without a controller) or $1,128 with the new gamepad. The premium 2 TB model pushes those prices even higher, selling at $1,349 for the standalone console and hitting $1,428 if you want the bundle.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Rookie
      Almohandis went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Apprentice
      jahara21 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      534
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      266
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      148
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      97
    5. 5
      macoman
      57
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!