Legal

Big changes and big problems are on their way for Ashley Madison. The hits keep coming after the adultery dating site’s high-profile hack last year.

First, the bad news. Ashley Madison is back in hot water thanks to a U.S. Federal Trade Commission investigation and a flood of lawsuits over the site’s use of “fembots” to lure cheating men. An Ernst and Young report confirmed that Avid Life Media, owner of Ashley Madison, used fake dating profiles to impersonate women and scam unwitting male users into entering their credit card information.

According to Gizmodo, Ashley Madison created more than 70,000 female bots in a “sophisticated, deliberate, and lucrative fraud.” The faux females would initiate chats with men by saying things like “Hmmmm, when I was younger I used to sleep with my friend’s boyfriends. I guess old habits die hard although I could never sleep with their husbands.”

Avid claims it shut down the bot accounts in the United States, Canada and Australia in 2014, and by late 2015 in the rest of the world. However, some U.S. users say they exchanged messages with foreign fembots until late in 2015. Now a handful of such users have filed class action suits against the company.

A recent statement from Avid Life Media indicates how the company plans to proceed. The statement announces "a new direction and total repositioning" of the service, with newly appointed chief executive Rob Segal and president James Millership at the helm.

"Our new team is committed to taking care of our members and to building on our portfolio of unique and open-minded online dating brands," said Millership. "Millions of people have continued to connect on our sites during the past year and they deserve a discreet, open-minded community where they can connect with like-minded individuals."

Millership reinforced that bots will no longer be used at Avid Life Media and Ashley Madison. The company has also stepped up security and hired a cyber-security team to implement new safeguards and monitoring. Both Millership and Segal say they do not know the focus of the FTC investigation.

Former users of Ashley Madison may notice other key changes. The site has undergone significant makeover, with a new “look and feel” that is distinctly less obvious about the adultery theme.

"Ashley Madison today is about so much more than infidelity, it's about all kinds of adult dating," the website says. It remains to be seen if its 46 million members agree.

As Pride Month ends in America, there’s big news for the country’s LGBT singles. Faith-based dating site ChristianMingle.com must now allow users to look for same-sex matches following the settlement of a class-action lawsuit in California.

The site, which bills itself as the largest online community for Christian singles, currently requires new users to select one of two options when creating an account: man seeking woman or woman seeking man. That is now set to change, following a three-year fight for equal rights.

Two gay men filed class action claims against ChristianMingle’s parent company, Spark Networks, in 2013. The suit alleged that the dating site excluded same-sex users, thereby violating the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California’s anti-discrimination law.

The State of California's website states: "Under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, all persons are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments, including both private and public entities. The Unruh Civil Rights Act protects all persons against arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination by a business establishment."

Spark Networks agreed to the judge-approved settlement on June 27. Under the settlement, Spark Networks will only require users to identify themselves as a man or woman. The company also agreed to add new options for gay and lesbian users within two years. The settlement applies to ChristianMingle.com as well as its sister sites CatholicMingle.com, AdventistSinglesConnection.com, and BlackSingles.com.

During the two years, “Spark will ensure that the ‘man seeking woman’ and ‘woman seeking man’ options on the gateway/home pages of the Mingle sites ask only whether the user is a ‘man’ or a ‘woman,’” reads the judgment. Spark Networks must not change the match prompts to “man seeking woman” at any time in the future, unless it also “provides similar prompts which allow individuals seeking a same sex match to enter and use the sites without having to state that they are seeking a match with someone of the opposite sex.”

Additionally, the judge ordered Spark Networks to pay $9,000 to each of the plaintiffs who brought the suit, as well as covering the full $450,000 in attorneys fees incurred by the two men.

Vineet Dubey, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, expressed gratitude for the case’s resolution. “I am gratified that we were able to work with Spark to help ensure that people can fully participate in all the diverse market places that make our country so special, regardless of their sexual orientation,” he said in a statement.

A spokesperson for Spark Networks told The Wall Street Journal that the company was “pleased to resolve this litigation.”

Tinder, one of the world’s largest dating platforms, has been available to users as young as thirteen since the app launched almost four years ago. Tinder’s practice of letting teens use its app has been an anomaly in the industry, and one that hasn’t gotten as much attention as its reputation for quick hook-ups. But as of this month, the company has raised its minimum user age requirement up to eighteen.

This leaves many people asking: Tinder, what took you so long?

Online dating has been the subject of both opportunity and scorn in recent years. It's been a great way for people in different social circles to meet and expand their networks, but it has also posed a security risk, mostly due to a small percentage of users misleading other online daters by setting up fake profiles. Understandably, this has caused concern among parents whose teenagers have been using the popular dating app to find others to meet.

Tinder’s age verification is tied to Facebook, and the app has only let users who are younger than 18 see other users who are between the ages of 13-17. This would be fine in theory, but in practice it’s another story. This works only if the underage user has also set up a Facebook account with an accurate profile in which they reveal their real age. However, there is room for abuse if someone sets up a fake profile on Facebook, claiming to be eighteen or older, in order to continue using the app while underage.

Also understandably, this poses a problem for Tinder users who are reaching out to other users who they believe are age appropriate, only to find they are still teenagers. So while the restrictions are a move in a positive direction, it’s not a foolproof protection against fake profiles and catfishing.

All of the other popular online dating sites, including Match, eHarmony, and POF (Plenty of Fish) have had restrictions in place from the beginning when it comes to the ages of their users, and they all have a minimum requirement of eighteen. POF takes it one step further – if you are a female between 18-21, no guys over 30 years old can message or contact you over the service.

Tinder is attempting to make its platform a little more user-friendly, female-friendly, and age appropriate. It is also aiming to make daters of all sexual and gender identities feel more welcome. Recently, the company announced its plans to include transgender identification in profiles along with preferences.

So why did Tinder allow younger daters to use its app? Like all online dating services, it’s about the numbers. But since Tinder has a popular brand and large database of users now, it’s time they put the restrictions in place.

For more on this dating app, chck our our review of TInder.

Norway’s consumer authority has spoken out against Tinder’s current terms and conditions by filing a formal complaint against the company.

The Norwegian Consumer Council insists that the popular dating app is not protecting its users, granting sweeping ownership rights and control over users’ data. Some of the terms and conditions Tinder users agree to when downloading the app include allowing Tinder change its terms without notifying users, and allowing the app to delete users’ accounts without justification. The Council also points out that users aren’t allowed to delete their own accounts if they want to (which could allow Tinder to inflate their own numbers by potentially counting inactive profiles).

While these policies are spelled out in Tinder’s current terms and conditions, most people aren’t taking the time to read through or really understand how their data could be used. And Norwegian authorities want to call the company out on the practice.

Another sticking point for Tinder according to the Council is that the minimum user age is listed at 13, which country officials consider too young, especially when it comes to understanding complicated online privacy issues.

While Tinder is arguably the most successful dating app, its popularity soared in part because the app was free for those who downloaded it. Access to data from its user base is one of the ways Tinder can make money. A revenue model they use includes offering targeted (data-driven) marketing.

According to a recent article in Fortune, this isn’t the first complaint about app and social media privacy policies from governments outside the U.S. In France earlier this year, the consumer organization UFC-Que Choisir asked French data protection authority CNIL to investigate dating app Happn over its data-collection practices. And the German antitrust authority launched a complaint against Facebook over its “unfair” terms and conditions, on the premise that it is dominates the social networking market and has an unfair competitive advantage.

While Tinder doesn’t have a European operation, it does offer the app in Norwegian language and it is available in Norway’s app store, so it does have to abide by the country’s regulations when selling to its market.

If Norway’s officials consider the case against the company, it may order Tinder to change its terms and conditions or face penalties. Tinder said it makes every effort to comply with local and national regulations. The company released a statement that read: “If and when authorities bring up larger privacy concerns, we always take them into consideration and, if applicable to our users, take steps to implement any necessary changes. We are committed to protecting our users’ privacy and strive to uphold a fair and trusted privacy policy.”

For more information on this dating app please read our review of Tinder.

Friends Reunited won’t be available to message, post and keep in touch anymore. The once-popular social site, founded in 2000, was left in the dust by rivals such as MySpace and later, to a larger extent, Facebook.

Friends Reunited has a turbulent history. At one point a tech darling after quickly gaining three million subscribers in 2003, it was sold to ITV in 2005 for 125 million pounds, or about $208 million US. At its peak, 23 million users were on Friends Reunited.

But what the company didn’t intend was that employers would begin to use the service to check on potential and current employees, gauging what they said on social media as opposed to how they conducted themselves at work. It led to businesses using the site as a way to spy on employees, gathering information such as whether an employee was looking for another job, what they were saying about co-workers, or what interviewees and potential employees were saying online that could be potentially harmful.

At one stage, according to UK newspaper The Telegraph, Friends Reunited was blamed for a spike in the divorce rate on the grounds it encouraged classroom sweethearts to rekindle romances.

Instead of a positive, uplifting social experience where people felt secure to engage and share, the company found its platform being used as a way to spy on people for bad behavior. Naturally, users over time stopped posting and using the service. Membership dropped, especially when Facebook entered the picture a couple of years later. While Facebook continued to gain users, Friends Reunited found itself floundering.

The company was sold yet again in 2009 to DC Thompson for only 25 million pounds, and had only a fraction of its user base still active on the site. In 2012, the company decided to do a reboot and rebrand itself “Memory Box,” hoping to take on Facebook’s rapid growth. Memory Box did not succeed.

In 2014, DC Thompson offered the platform back to the original founder of Friends Reunited Steve Pankhurst, who thought he could restart the fledgling website. But in an announcement made on self-publishing platform Medium, Pankhurst announced its closure in January.

He wrote on Medium: "The first part of our plan was to put Friends Reunited back to make it more like the original site  --  that is, listing your schools and memories of your school days." However, this didn't really happen.

Pankhurst is now working on a new social media site called Liife, which allows you to upload photos and mark and share them with friends to identify significant “moments,” like trips, awards ceremonies or graduations. He said the new site would in no way replace Friends Reunited.

The related service Friends Reunited Dating still appears to be in operation and is not affected by the closing of the social service Friends Reunited. For more information on dating site please read our review of Friends Reunited Dating.

Lone Star Introductions, a matchmaking service operating in the state of Texas to help singles find love, was forced to cease operations and pay restitution to its former customers. According to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office, the judgment came from a lawsuit against the Massachusetts based company ‘for violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Internet Dating Safety Act.’

A state district court issued an injunction that calls on the dating service and affiliated dating sites, including eLove Matchmaking, International Dating Ventures and International Introductions, to cease operations in the state. Lone Star Introductions was using multiple company names to pursue its aggressive tactics, and was informed by the state of Texas two years ago that they were being investigated.

The attorney general says the company uses lead generating companies to mine online dating services for customer contacts, then uses the information to make cold calls in Texas, without registering as a telemarketer. They would pressure prospective clients to meet in the Lone Star Introductions offices to sign expensive contracts for dating services which they would then not provide.

According to website Courthouse News, Lone Star Introductions was particularly ruthless when it came to getting money from vulnerable clients. According to court documents, once Lone Star would get a phone number, they "use high pressure and coercive tactics" to try to get targets to sign up, including "incessant phone calls," coercion and manipulation. "Defendants charge consumers between $7,995 and $12,995 for prospective dating introductions," the state says.

Lone Star calls its telemarketers "counselors,” but according to Paxton’s office were little more than aggressive telemarketers.

Courthouse News goes on to note the following from the lawsuit: "Consumers who complained to defendants and requested to cancel their contracts are harassed and threatened by defendants with financial ruin and criminal prosecution. One consumer alleges that an eLove representative 'yelled four-letter curse words at [him], threatened to destroy [his] credit, prosecute [him] for a felony, and report [him] to the Texas Attorney General's Office' when the consumer attempted to cancel his contract."

According to Paxton’s office this type of harassment and threat to consumers violates debt collection regulations. Also, the “Counselors” at Lone Star Introductions failed to comply with the Texas Internet Dating Safety Act, which includes advising customers of safe dating practices.

The final judgment ordered the defendant to pay $500,000 in civil penalties and pay $20,000 in restitution to customers.