FTC Fines Online Dating Site For Using 'Fake, Computer-Generated Profiles' To Lure Guys Into Buying Premium Memberships
from the because-guys dept
In the past, we’ve written about lawsuits involving dating site Match.com and “dating site for married people” Ashley Madison over concerns about fake profiles being set up on the site to lure in paying users. Now it appears the FTC is stepping in on such things, and it’s reached a settlement (pdf) with one company, JDI Dating, which runs a bunch of dating sites, for tricking lots of people into buying premium plans based on fake profiles sending messages to “free” users.
According to a complaint filed by the FTC, JDI Dating and William Mark Thomas operate a worldwide dating service via 18 websites, including cupidswand.com, flirtcrowd.com and findmelove.com. The defendants offered a free plan that allowed users to set up a profile with personal information and photos. As soon as a new user set up a free profile, he or she began to receive messages that appeared to be from other members living nearby, expressing romantic interest or a desire to meet. However, users were unable to respond to these messages without upgrading to a paid membership. Membership plans cost from $10 to $30 per month, with subscriptions generally ranging from one to 12 months.
The messages were almost always from fake, computer-generated profiles ? ?Virtual Cupids? ? created by the defendants, with photos and information designed to closely mimic the profiles of real people. A small ?v? encircled by a ?C? on the profile page was the only indication that the profiles were fake. Users were not likely to see ? much less understand ? this icon. The fake profiles and messages caused many users to upgrade to paid subscriptions.
It’s actually somewhat surprising that they even indicated that the profiles were fake with that tiny VC logo. I would have expected that a company doing this sort of thing wouldn’t have even bothered.
Filed Under: dating site, fake profiles, fines, ftc
Companies: jdi dating
Comments on “FTC Fines Online Dating Site For Using 'Fake, Computer-Generated Profiles' To Lure Guys Into Buying Premium Memberships”
“… computer-generated profiles – ‘Virtual Cupids’…”
…inflaming the passions of Virtual Stupids.
There once was a Virtual Cupid
Arousing our male members’ group id,
With bosoms enticing
At premium pricing,
We truly can say “I’m With Stupid“.
Re: Re:
This had better show up on Best Comments this Sunday or I will be severely disappointed in all of you.
Except you, BF.
Re: Re: Re:
Tip o’ the hat to Vidiot.
I’m almost ashamed to admit it, but I’ve been on a few dating sights. Part of the fun of dating sights for me was running the other person threw the Turing Test. I’ve had several fail.
Re: Re:
Why are you ashamed to admit it?
Why is meeting people on a website any different to meeting them at a pub, club, archaeology lecture, etc
Re: Re: Re:
There is still a stigma attached to online dating. But to be honest, it’s more about being on multiple dating sites and failing. People don’t like it when you start running them threw a Turing Test.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“There is still a stigma attached to online dating.”
Not as much as there used to be. I discovered an interesting thing, though. When I tell people that I met my wife through online dating, more often than not they’ll respond with their own online dating experiences. I think the perception of a stigma is largely that — a perception — and that a very large percentage, if not a majority, of people in the dating pool have used online dating at least some.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
yes i use dating site and well on to the fake profiles the fakes you can run them thought he test and it can be quite fun catching these dishonest sods out and ye sthay dont like it and in alot of cases get very cross that tthay been sussed but what riles me most is the computer generated meassages possing to be real profiles of real people it should be iligal to miislead people and rip them off in such a cheap and digusting way
Re: Re:
those were likely the real people
Re: Re: Re:
Seconded. I know quite a few people I’m pretty sure would fail a Turing test.
What? ! Didn’t the DEA file a business methods patent on this?
The messages were almost always from fake, computer-generated profiles – “Virtual Cupids” – created by the defendants, with photos and information designed to closely mimic the profiles of real people
Someone was surprised by this?
Re: Re:
I was surprised that they provided an icon that indicated that the profile was fake.
Re: Re: Re:
It would save a lot of bandwidth to put the icon just on the ones that are real.
And to think that I proposed to HeidiHi.
~Manti Te’o
FTC fines “a” single dating site? What a bunch of morons. Every dating site does this. Match.com, Zoosk, eHarmony and many others. So, FTC only fines one site for doing this? What a load of horsecrap.
Re: Re:
Not saying that you’re wrong, but… I met my wife through match.com and so have some experience with them. I was never contacted by someone who wasn’t a real person.
Re: Re: Re:
I bet that was awkward.
Husband: “Hi Honey. What’re you doing here? I thought you were going to see an old friend.”
Wife: “… I was. What’re you doing here? I thought you were working on a house project today.”
Husband: “I needed to take a break and I got a message from an old buddy cough to meet here…”
Re: Re: Re: Re:
this goes along with…
To married male in front of his wife; “Joe, I heard you were sleeping with a married woman” Blushing frustrated Joe: “no where did you hear that?”
“In your wedding vows”
or conversely
“I only sleep with married women, she just happens to be my wife!”
They need to be taking a close look at zoosk’s facebook app for sure!
Deniability icon
My guess is that they put the icon on there so that, if caught, they could claim that they told the user that the profile was fake and it’s not their fault the user was too uninformed, too eager, etc. to notice that they were being drawn in by a fake.
VC logo
They probably thought that using this logo would provide a defence against complaints like the one from the FTC.
really surprised?
well I have been online since before microphones were introduced to chat rooms… what fun it was to get on a mic in a room full of folks you cannot see..1998
Then webcams hit yahoo (2000 or so) I was one of 100 cameras available to view in those days, Folks thought that just by owning a camera you got “special” treatment. It was more a nightmare, everyone wanted to see your camera view (back then, everyone had CLOTHES on, some even Dressed for the webcam)
then the begging started, please show some skin (usually the back of the middle finger from any female dumb enough to get infront of a cam) so then when a female DID get on cam and showed skin then recordings started.
The faking started about 20 mins after the fist girl on a non pay site showed skin, Some guys would even dress up RealDolls and use them on cam as real women,(to induce real women to show) sad and funny at the same time.
None of this is new
(I’m a 19 year old buxom girl, I have no cam, mic, keyboard, mouse, monitor,Cpu or harddrive, can I watch you two fuck on cam? I have some Stolen porn pics I’ll show ya..1999 meme)
Not surprising
It’s not surprising that sites do this, but what’s surprising is that that FTC finally caught up to them.
This about it: how do these sites get people to pay and join, rather than staying as a free member? The sites have to tempt people with matches.
When I joined eHarmony years ago, they would send me e-mails saying they found a perfect match for me. I would read through the profile and send an e-mail to the lady, but then I’d get either “That member has closed her profile” or no reply. So if that member closed her profile, why did eHarmony send me an e-mail saying it was a match?
Answer: to make sure I was still getting enough matches to keep me as a paid member.
Re: Not surprising
Yeah, as bad as that is, it’s not as bad as what the FTC is talking about here — having fake people reach out and contact you so you pay them money to have the ability to respond to them.
Based on Japanese technology. Ahem.
Birds do it, bees do it, even automatic computer generated profiles do it…
They should just make a law against fake profile sites, and a fine of $10.000 per day per profile and per user messaging those fake profiles
Then we’ll see how many sites rush to fix the issue..
Nice Limerick!
Here’s one;
There once was a huge hole named debt
I painstakingly dug bet by bet.
Be it cribbage, pool or chess,
Opponents were wise to invest.
Now there’s plenty of space to sublet..
My thought exactly
Hi,
Great post back there. people are looking for partner online nowadays. Its just that they have to think and choose whom to deal with. Will have to take action on cyber way…….