Match Hit With Class Action Over Cancellation Policy

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Match.com was hit with a class action lawsuit alleging that the dating website forces customers to enter into contracts without giving them a way to cancel their memberships, which is required under California law.

Plaintiff Zeke Graf claims in his Match class action lawsuit that Match’s “conduct is a scheme carried out by defendant which involves making significant amounts of money from California consumers through false, deceptive, and misleading means” by “unlawfully forcing California consumers to enter into contracts that required said consumers to waive important protections afforded by the California Legislature.”

Graf, a California resident, explains in his Match.com class action lawsuit that he joined Match in 2012 for $30 per month for about three months. When Graf joined Match, he had to give the dating service his personal information such as his name, telephone number, address as well as other information including pictures.

However, according to the class action lawsuit, the state of California makes specific requirements of dating services that “in close proximity to the space reserved for the signature of the buyer, a conspicuous statement in a size equal to at least 10-point boldface” that explains that the agreement may be canceled at anytime “without penalty or obligation.”

The dating service is also supposed to include the name and address where a person may send a letter for the purpose of canceling the agreement.

But the Match class action lawsuit alleges that this was not the case — not only was the clause not included, there was also no name and address by which the contract could be canceled.

“In fact, [Match’s] contract explicitly stated that [Graf’s] subscription with defendant would remain active until the end of the plaintiff’s subscription period following plaintiff’s cancellation of said dating service contract,” Graf explains in his Match.com class action lawsuit.

Graf claims that this was not just the case for him but for other Match.com customers as well.

“Consumers were [deceptively] deceived into believing that said consumers had to incur fees and costs to defendant while said consumer’s subscription was coming to an end,” the class action lawsuit adds.

The California man is looking to represent a class of California residents “who purchased a subscription from [Match] via [Match.com] that failed to include the Notice of said consumer’s right to cancel the contract with defendant within the four years prior to the filing of this complaint.”

The Match class action lawsuit accuses the dating service of violating California business law by allegedly “forcing California consumers to enter into illegal contracts for dating services,” as described above; and he charges Match with violating California’s Unfair Competition Law including the unlawful, unfair and fraudulent prongs of that law.

And the Match.com class action lawsuit claims that the dating service violations of California law “were knowing and intentional.”

Graf is asking that the proposed class members be awarded damages “in the amount of the subscription payments made by them.”

Graf is represented by Abbas Kazerounian and Matthew M. Loker of the Kazerouni Law Group APC and Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart.

Counsel information for Match.com is not yet available.

The Match.com Class Action Lawsuit is Graf v. Match.com LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02913 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.