FTC Match Group Settlement: $14M Subscription Changes

Subscriptions are a lot like dating: signing up is easy, leaving should be easy, and nobody should get locked out of the relationship because they asked
a reasonable question about the bill. In August 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a $14 million settlement with Match Group to resolve
allegations that touched three big nerves in modern digital life: “guarantees” that weren’t as simple as they sounded, cancellations that felt like an
escape room, and account access that could disappear after a billing dispute.

If you’ve ever tried to cancel something and ended up negotiating with a “discount offer” like it was a hostage situation, this case is worth your time.
And if you run a subscription business, it’s a flashing sign that says: “Stop making people work for their own breakups.”

What happened in the FTC–Match Group settlement

Match Group, which operates and/or owns a portfolio of dating services, agreed to pay $14 million and accept a set of permanent restrictions and
requirements aimed at how it advertises certain offers, how it handles billing disputes, and how it lets people cancel recurring subscriptions.
The FTC stated the money is intended for consumer redress (meaning refunds or similar relief for people harmed by the alleged practices).

The public attention-grabber is the number: $14 million. But the more practical headline is the behavioral change:
clearer terms, simpler cancellation, and no “punishment” for consumers who dispute charges.

Timeline in plain English

2013–2018 (alleged): Practices related to marketing messages and interactions that the FTC said exposed consumers to fraud risks.
2013–2019 (alleged): A mix of “guarantee” marketing, a cumbersome cancellation flow, and account access issues after billing disputes.
September 2019: The FTC filed its complaint.
August 12, 2025: The FTC announced the settlement and proposed order.

Translation: the case is about how a major subscription platform treated the moment when curiosity becomes commitmentwhen a user goes from “browsing”
to payingand how hard it was to reverse that decision later.

The core allegations: guarantees, cancellations, and “don’t punish the chargeback”

The FTC’s case wasn’t a single “gotcha.” It focused on a pattern: marketing claims that pushed users toward paid subscriptions, and a subscription system
that allegedly made it hard to exit cleanly or challenge charges without consequences.

1) The “six-month guarantee” that came with homework

One of the biggest hooks in the complaint was a promotion suggesting that if a subscriber didn’t “meet someone special,” they could get a free six-month
subscription. The FTC alleged that consumers weren’t adequately told about the requirements needed to qualify.

The proposed order gets very specific about what “clear disclosure” looks like. In effect, if a company is going to dangle a guarantee, it must state the
conditions plainlyno tiny-font scavenger hunt. In this settlement, the conditions associated with the “six-month guarantee” include requirements like:

Keeping a public profile with an approved primary photo early in the subscription window,
Messaging a certain number of unique subscribers per month, and
Redeeming the offer through a designated progress page during a narrow time window near the end of the initial subscription term.

Whether you think those requirements are reasonable or ridiculous, the consumer-protection point is simple: if the deal has rules, people should see the
rules before they paynot after they’ve rearranged their life to chase the fine print.

2) Cancellation that feels like an “are you sure?” marathon

The FTC also alleged that users faced a cancellation process that was confusing and burdensomeso confusing that some consumers believed they’d canceled
when they hadn’t. In subscription-land, that’s not just annoying; it’s expensive, because recurring billing keeps recurring.

This issue connects to the broader concept of negative option marketing: you’re charged unless you take steps to cancel.
Negative options can be legal, but regulators expect clarity, informed consent, and an exit that doesn’t require a map, a compass, and a motivational speech.

3) Billing disputes and account access: the “double penalty” problem

Another allegation involved consumers who disputed charges and then lost the disputeafter which, the complaint said, they could be denied access to
paid-for services. In everyday terms: someone pays, questions the charge, and then ends up unable to use what they already paid for.

The proposed order addresses this by restricting retaliation against consumers who file (or threaten to file) billing disputes, including disputes raised
with financial institutions or consumer protection agencies.

4) Fraud risk and trust signals

The FTC’s 2019 complaint also described concerns about communications associated with accounts identified as potentially fraudulent and how that could
influence consumers to subscribe. Even if someone never loses money to a scam, the harm can be time, stress, and a general loss of trustespecially in
a category where trust is the whole product.

The larger lesson: subscription design and trust-and-safety design aren’t separate roomsthey share the same wall. If a platform’s marketing leans on
“you have messages waiting,” then the integrity of those messages becomes a consumer-protection issue, not just a product issue.

What Match Group agreed to do (and what the order requires)

The settlement isn’t just “pay money, move on.” The proposed order lays out ongoing requirements that reshape how offers are presented, how cancellations
happen, and how billing disputes are handled.

Key requirements in the proposed order

Stop misrepresenting guarantee terms: The order bars misrepresentations about material restrictions or conditions tied to a “six-month
guarantee” or similar promises.
Make disclosures “clear and conspicuous”: The order spells out disclosure standards and requires that important terms be unavoidable in
interactive electronic environments (like apps and websites), not buried behind multiple clicks.
Provide a simple cancellation mechanism: In connection with any covered service that uses a negative option feature, the order requires a
simple way to stop recurring charges.
No retaliation for billing disputes: The order restricts adverse actions against consumers who file or threaten to file billing disputes,
particularly where it would deny access to paid-for goods or services.
Support consumer redress administration: The order includes obligations related to providing customer information to help administer refunds
or other consumer relief.

A useful way to read this is to imagine a “fair subscription” standard:
What you promise must be what you deliver, what you charge must be what you disclosed, and what you let people do to join must be matched by what you let people do to leave.

Why this matters beyond dating apps

The FTC’s Match Group settlement is part of a larger enforcement vibe across subscription services: if your business model depends on inertia, regulators
are going to ask whether that inertia was earned (people are happy) or engineered (people are trapped).

1) “Subscription friction” is now a legal risk, not just a UX choice

Product teams sometimes treat cancellation friction as a retention strategy. But enforcement actions increasingly treat it as a consumer harm.
The more your cancellation flow resembles a “choose-your-own-adventure” book, the more likely it is to become Exhibit A.

2) Guarantees aren’t magicguarantees are contracts

Marketers love the word “guarantee” because it feels comforting. Regulators love the word “guarantee” because it’s testable. If a guarantee requires
steps, thresholds, or a specific redemption process, those conditions need to be front-and-center. Otherwise, the “guarantee” can start looking like a
sales tactic rather than a promise.

3) Billing disputes shouldn’t trigger a customer lockout spiral

Payment disputes are normal in modern commerce. People lose cards, banks flag suspicious charges, and sometimes a subscription renews when a consumer
thought it ended. When a dispute becomes an automatic account punishment, consumers can feel like they’re being penalized for using standard financial
protections.

A consumer checklist: how to protect yourself with subscriptions and online dating services

This section is for readers who want practical steps, not legal jargon. (Because nobody wants to learn “consumer protection law” the hard way.)

Before you subscribe

Read the “real” offer terms: If there’s a guarantee, look for the requirements and timing windows.
Screenshot key claims: Save the offer page and the cancellation instructions as proof of what was presented.
Know where you subscribed: App store subscriptions can have different cancellation steps than website subscriptions.
Set a calendar reminder: If there’s a trial or a renewal date, remind your future self before it hits.

While you’re using the service

Watch for “too perfect” messages: If something feels scripted, rushed, or asks for money or off-platform contact immediately, treat it as a red flag.
Protect personal info: Avoid sharing sensitive details (address, financial info, private images) with people you don’t know well.
Use in-app reporting tools: Report suspicious accounts and save any relevant messages.

If you want to cancel

Look for a confirmation screen or email: Don’t close the tab until you see a clear confirmation.
Save evidence: Screenshot the confirmation and any “your subscription is canceled” message.
Check your statement: Verify that recurring charges actually stop after the cancellation date.
If you’re under 18: Use age-appropriate platforms and talk to a parent/guardian if something online feels unsafe or financially confusing.

Lessons for subscription businesses (yes, even if you don’t run a dating app)

For companies, the settlement reads like a checklist for “how to stay out of trouble” in a subscription economy:
if your growth depends on recurring billing, regulators will examine how you got consent, what you promised, and how you let people leave.

Design principles that reduce enforcement risk

Make cancellation symmetric: If it takes 30 seconds to subscribe, it shouldn’t take 30 minutes to cancel.
Disclose like you mean it: Important terms should be unavoidable, readable on mobile, and written for humans.
Don’t hide the “how” behind a maze: Multi-step cancellation flows can be seen as intentional friction.
Guarantees must be operationally real: If redemption requires steps, show them upfront and make compliance easy to track.
Billing disputes should trigger support, not punishment: Create a process that resolves issues without denying paid-for access as leverage.
Trust & safety is revenue protection: If suspicious accounts drive paid conversions, that’s not “marketing efficiency,” that’s a legal and ethical problem.

The best compliance strategy is surprisingly boring: be clear, be fair, and don’t treat confusion as a business model. (Confusion is not a moat. It’s a
lawsuit incubator.)

Quick FAQ

Does the $14 million mean every user gets a refund?

Not necessarily. The FTC described the money as being used for consumer redress, but refund eligibility and amounts typically depend on how the agency
administers a redress program and who qualifies as “injured consumers.”

Is this only about Match.com, or other apps too?

The FTC’s announcement and the proposed order reference a range of services under the company’s umbrella and define covered services broadly. In practice,
the core behaviorsadvertising claims, billing practices, cancellation mechanismsare the compliance focus.

Did Match Group admit wrongdoing?

Public reporting included statements that Match did not admit liability as part of the resolution. That’s common in many settlements: money is paid and
business practices change without an admission of fault.

What should consumers take away from this?

Treat “guarantees” like contracts, not slogans. Track how you subscribed and how to cancel. Save confirmations. And if anything online feels like it’s
pushing you to pay because of urgency or fear (“you’ll miss this message!”), pause and verify.

Real-world experiences: what this looked like for everyday users (extra )

Legal documents can feel abstract, so let’s ground this in the kinds of experiences people commonly describe when subscription promises collide with
real life. These are composite scenariospatterns that show why regulators care about clarity, not just clever marketing.

Experience #1: The “guarantee” that felt like a pop quiz

A user signs up after seeing a comforting promise: if they don’t meet someone special, they’ll get extra time. It feels low-risk, almost like a safety net.
Weeks later, they try to redeem the offer and discover it’s tied to a checklist: specific activity requirements, timing windows, and a particular place
in the account where redemption must happen. The emotional vibe flips fastfrom “this company stands behind its service” to “I needed a spreadsheet to
qualify for the guarantee.”

The frustration isn’t just the rules; it’s when the rules are discovered. If the requirements had been obvious upfront, the user could have decided,
“Sure, I’ll do that,” or “No thanks.” Surprise requirements feel less like a deal and more like a gotcha.

Experience #2: The cancellation flow that kept offering “one more step”

Another user realizes they’re not using the service and tries to cancel. The first page offers discounts. The next page asks for feedback. The next page
suggests pausing. The next page says, “Are you sure?” like the app is a well-meaning friend who refuses to let you text your ex. Finally, the user thinks
they canceledonly to see a renewal charge later.

Even when each step looks “reasonable” in isolation, the overall experience can be confusing, especially on mobile. Consumers don’t mind being asked,
“Do you want to pause instead?” They mind when the “Cancel” button feels like it’s playing hide-and-seek.

Experience #3: The billing dispute that turned into a service blackout

Billing disputes happen for normal reasons: a subscription renews unexpectedly, a card is replaced, a bank flags a transaction, or a consumer genuinely
believes a charge is incorrect. Some users describe feeling punished for raising the issuelosing access to features they already paid for, even while
trying to figure out what happened.

For consumers, that feels like paying twice: once in money, and again in the inability to use the service. For regulators, it raises a fairness question:
should a consumer lose access to paid-for services simply because they used standard financial protections?

Experience #4: “You have a message!” and the pressure to pay now

Many subscription services use urgency. In online dating, urgency can be especially persuasive: “Someone reached out!” The user pays to read the message,
only to realize the interaction feels generic, suspicious, or quickly pushes for off-platform contact. Whether or not it’s an actual scam, the consumer
feels like the platform’s marketing leaned on an emotional moment to trigger a purchase.

The takeaway here isn’t “don’t use dating apps.” It’s: platforms should be careful that their conversion strategies don’t amplify fraud risk. And users
should feel empowered to slow down. Real connection can wait 10 minutes while you check your settings and think, “Does this feel legit?”

Experience #5: The “I just wanted it to stop charging me” relief

The most common emotional note people share about messy subscriptions isn’t angerit’s exhaustion. They aren’t trying to “win.” They just want the
charges to stop and the account to behave predictably. When a cancellation process is simple, the relationship ends cleanly. When it’s complicated,
the cancellation becomes the storyand nobody wants their dating app to become a recurring billing memoir.

The reason this settlement matters is that it treats these experiences as more than customer service issues. It frames them as consumer protection:
clear promises, clear prices, and clear exits.

Final takeaway

The FTC’s $14 million Match Group settlement is a reminder that in the subscription economy, “good UX” and “legal compliance” are increasingly the same
thing. If a company markets a guarantee, the requirements should be obvious. If a service renews automatically, canceling should be straightforward.
And if a customer disputes a charge, the response should be a fair processnot a lock on the door.

For consumers, the best protection is simple habits: save offer terms, confirm cancellations, monitor renewals, and stay alert to suspicious outreach.
For businesses, the message is even simpler: make the honest path the easy path.