Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Thursday September 26 2019, @04:23AM   Printer-friendly
from the con-job dept.

Match.com? More like Match dot-con, claims watchdog: Cyber-lonely-hearts 'lured into forking out to view bot spam':

On Wednesday, the FTC alleged in a legal complaint that Match.com and other dating sites owned by Match group broke US law when they let accounts known to be fraudulent message netizens who had set up free profiles.

The problem, the regulator says in its Texas court paperwork (PDF), starts with the dotcom's business model of letting users join for free but charging them to view messages, or to see who is interested in them, and send replies.

In this case, the FTC says that the site allowed obvious scam accounts that had been banned from contacting paid customers to message people with free accounts. The free users were not told who was contacting them, nor see the content of the love note, nor that the sender had been flagged as a scammers.

Rather, the users were told they would need to upgrade to a paid account in order to see that sexy memo, and only then, after coughing up cash, were they notified that they were being courted by a bogus profile. In other words, the FTC says that not only did Match allow scammers to operate on its site, but it also used them to make money.

What's a lonely heart to do?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Thursday September 26 2019, @02:54PM

    by meustrus (4961) on Thursday September 26 2019, @02:54PM (#899127)

    That is one awful title. Is "Match Dot-Con" some kind of conference? Is "Cyber-Lonely-Hearts" the name of a group of programmers, concept album, or some trendy software? Does the fork still comply with GPL?

    No, it's actually a cluster of made-up cutesy headline-speak that makes zero sense without reading the summary. Only then can the reader truly appreciate how "clever" the headline-writer was.

    I for one would like to see comprehensible headlines on Soylent News.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3