In yet another multi-million dollar enforcement action, Match Group, Inc. and Match Group, LLC (“Match”), owners of Match.com, OkCupid, Plenty of Fish, and The League, have agreed to pay $14 million and overhaul core business practices after the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) accused them of engaging in deceptive advertising, unfair billing, and obstructive cancellation processes. The settlement, announced on August 12, 2025, underscores the growing regulatory expectation that digital service providers operate with transparency and integrity not just in marketing, but also in handling consumer data and honoring user rights.

The FTC’s action stems from allegations first made in September 2019, when the Agency accused Match of using misleading tactics to lure users into paid subscriptions. One of the most striking statements from the FTC at the time reads: “We believe that Match.com conned people into paying for subscriptions via messages the company knew were from scammers.” Internal records revealed that as many as 25 to 30 percent of daily sign-ups were suspected scam accounts, and more than half of certain instant messages and “favorites” came from accounts already flagged as fraudulent.

This deception extended beyond advertising into billing and service access. Match promoted a “free six-month subscription” guarantee but failed to clearly disclose restrictive conditions. Customers who disputed charges often found themselves locked out of their accounts, losing access to services they had already paid for. Internal Match emails which were later cited by the FTC describe the company’s cancellation process as “hard to find, tedious, and confusing,” which caused many users to unknowingly continue paying.

The settlement order  unanimously approved by the FTC and filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, requires Match to pay $14 million to provide redress for aggrieved consumers, and to make substantive operational changes. The company must now clearly and prominently disclose all promotional terms, stop retaliating against users who dispute charges, and provide a simple, straightforward cancellation method. Once approved by a federal judge, the order will carry the force of law.

The FTC’s emphasis on user-friendly cancellation policies is reminiscent of the FTC’s Click to Cancel rule, which was vacated by the Eight Circuit earlier this year. See Custom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, No. 24-3137, 2025 WL 1873489, at *9 (8th Cir. July 8, 2025). Briefly, the Click to Cancel Rule would have required that businesses make it as easy for consumers to cancel subscriptions as it is to sign up for them without burying cancellation options behind multiple screens or subjecting consumers to aggressive “save” offers. While the Click to Cancel Rule is no longer in force, the Match settlement shows that the FTC continues to enforce the same principle through its existing authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act: cancellation processes must be straightforward, accessible, and not designed to trap consumers into continued billing. In effect, the FTC is signaling that even without a formal “Click to Cancel” regulation, subscription-based companies will be held accountable if they make leaving harder than joining.

The Match Group settlement also highlights that consumer protection and transparency go hand in hand. Companies should review their user acquisition and retention strategies for potential “dark patterns” that could be seen as manipulative. This includes ensuring all promotional offers are presented with clear, conspicuous disclosures, building frictionless cancellation processes, and avoiding the use of personal data in ways that could be interpreted as deceptive. The cost of ignoring these requirements can be steep, both financially and reputationally.

This article was authored by Keerti Jaya