Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b><i>Online Extra</b></i> FTC Sues Online Dating Site Over Fake Flirty Profiles
That handsome stranger who likes pi'a coladas and getting caught in the rain, the one who just winked at you online? He might be a computer-generated fake, trying to trick you into upgrading to a paid online dating membership, according to the Federal Trade Commission.
On Oct. 29, the FTC'brought its first law enforcement action against an online dating service, suing JDI Dating Ltd. in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The company agreed to pay $616,165'to settle the case, quit using virtual profiles and modify its billing practices.
The FTC alleged the U.K.-based company, which has 12 million members across 18 dating sites, created phony profiles complete with photos and hobbies ' for example, curvy blonde HeidiHi from Arlington Heights, who loves sporting events and spending time with her family.
Joining the dating sites, which include cupidswand.com, flirtcrowd.com and findmelove.com, is free, but to send a personalized message, view a picture at full size or read certain messages, members must upgrade to a paid subscription.
That's where the so-called virtual cupids come in.
'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,' according to the FTC. 'However, users were unable to respond to these messages without upgrading to a paid membership.' The plans typically cost $10 to $30 a month.
The only indication that the available single was really a spam-bot was a small 'VC' icon ('darn near microscopic' is how FTC senior attorney Lesley Fair described it in the agency's blog), the meaning of which was buried in the terms and conditions page.
'JDI Dating used fake profiles to make people think they were hearing from real love interests and to trick them into upgrading to paid memberships,' Jessica Rich, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement. 'Adding insult to injury, users were charged automatically to renew their subscriptions ' often without their consent.'
The company also allegedly failed to tell subscribers that their subscriptions would be renewed automatically and that they would continue to be charged until they canceled.
The FTC accused JDI of violating Section 5 of the FTC Act, which bars unfair or deceptive marketing. The agency also said the company violated the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act of 2010 by failing to disclose clearly the terms of the negative-option plan, obtain express informed consent before charging consumers and provide a simple way to stop recurring charges.
JDI was represented by Lawrence Walters of the Walters Law Group in Longwood, Fla. 'JDI Dating has not admitted any wrongdoing in this matter, but was happy to reach a resolution of the issues that was satisfactory to all parties,' Walters said.
'
'
'
That handsome stranger who likes pi'a coladas and getting caught in the rain, the one who just winked at you online? He might be a computer-generated fake, trying to trick you into upgrading to a paid online dating membership, according to the Federal Trade Commission.
On Oct. 29, the FTC'brought its first law enforcement action against an online dating service, suing JDI Dating Ltd. in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The company agreed to pay $616,165'to settle the case, quit using virtual profiles and modify its billing practices.
The FTC alleged the U.K.-based company, which has 12 million members across 18 dating sites, created phony profiles complete with photos and hobbies ' for example, curvy blonde HeidiHi from Arlington Heights, who loves sporting events and spending time with her family.
Joining the dating sites, which include cupidswand.com, flirtcrowd.com and findmelove.com, is free, but to send a personalized message, view a picture at full size or read certain messages, members must upgrade to a paid subscription.
That's where the so-called virtual cupids come in.
'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,' according to the FTC. 'However, users were unable to respond to these messages without upgrading to a paid membership.' The plans typically cost $10 to $30 a month.
The only indication that the available single was really a spam-bot was a small 'VC' icon ('darn near microscopic' is how FTC senior attorney Lesley Fair described it in the agency's blog), the meaning of which was buried in the terms and conditions page.
'JDI Dating used fake profiles to make people think they were hearing from real love interests and to trick them into upgrading to paid memberships,' Jessica Rich, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement. 'Adding insult to injury, users were charged automatically to renew their subscriptions ' often without their consent.'
The company also allegedly failed to tell subscribers that their subscriptions would be renewed automatically and that they would continue to be charged until they canceled.
The FTC accused JDI of violating Section 5 of the FTC Act, which bars unfair or deceptive marketing. The agency also said the company violated the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act of 2010 by failing to disclose clearly the terms of the negative-option plan, obtain express informed consent before charging consumers and provide a simple way to stop recurring charges.
JDI was represented by Lawrence Walters of the Walters Law Group in Longwood, Fla. 'JDI Dating has not admitted any wrongdoing in this matter, but was happy to reach a resolution of the issues that was satisfactory to all parties,' Walters said.
'
'
'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?