In today’s fast-paced lifestyle, some consumers may seek to expand their social circle and find their soulmate by using matching services. Apart from personalised matching and follow-up services provided by traditional matchmaking companies, or face-to-face matching events, in recent years many people opt for dating apps which allow them to select potential partners anytime and anywhere according to personal preferences. However, the Consumer Council has received complaints about matching services, including recommended candidates not meeting requirements, and discrepant quality of dating app members. The Council urges the industry to adopt a consumer-centric approach by communicating thoroughly with consumers about their partner selection criteria before transactions, and to accurately record such requirement. Efforts should be made to enhance transparency in screening potential candidates, uphold integrity, and avoid making promises that are impossible to fulfil. Dating app operators should also consider improving user registration processes, such as implementing verification procedures to strengthen the reliability of user information and prevent fake registrations. When receiving user reports, traders should act promptly to remove problematic users to improve the overall service experience. Meanwhile, consumers and their family members should manage their own expectations, recognising that matching services may not guarantee a perfect match meeting all criteria, and remain vigilant when using dating apps to avoid falling victim to online romance scams.
Case 1: Agency Promised Provision of Matching Service Until Marriage
Dispute Over Age of Matched Partner and Betrothal Money Requirements
The complainant accompanied his son to patronise Agency A’s matching service and paid about $2,000 in service fees. At the time, the staff verbally promised to arrange meetings with female members of similar age for his son, and the contract stipulated that services would be provided until his son got married. Over the course of a year, Agency A arranged meetings with several local female members. However, the complainant considered that apart from the first female member, the other 3 were significantly older than promised and did not match the initial verbal commitment. Agency A suggested expanding the scope to include non-local female members and indicated that upon a successful match, his son might need to prepare betrothal money amounting to tens of thousands of dollars, but the complainant rejected this proposal and claimed that Agency A subsequently failed to follow up on matching arrangements. He thus sought assistance from the Council, hoping Agency A would honour its original promise by arranging meetings with local female members of similar age and increasing meeting frequency to improve chances of success.
Agency A replied to the Council that since the complainant purchased the service, it had maintained communication with his son via instant messaging and provided matching services. It had recommended a total of 6 female members, with his son directly contacting 3 of them either via messaging apps or meeting in person. Agency A also stated that the complainant had certain expectations regarding recommended female members, including appearance on top of age requirement. Through the Council’s conciliation, Agency A, considering that it had successfully facilitated direct contact with 3 female members, offered a refund of $800 and termination of membership and services as a resolution. The complainant accepted this proposal and the case was resolved.
Case 2: Dissatisfaction with Quality of Premium Matching Service
18 Recommended Candidates Failed to Fully Meet Criteria
The complainant, aged around 40 with an annual salary exceeding $3 million, sought a male partner of similar age and income, and paid $70,000 to Agency B for matching services. Agency B promised to recommend male members meeting her requirements and arrange 8 one-on-one dates, with no time limit on the service. Within the first year, Agency B recommended 18 male members, but none fully met the complainant’s stated criteria. She expressed dissatisfaction with Agency B, noting that the average cost was nearly $10,000 per date, yet no recommended partner fully matched her expectations. Unable to reach consensus with the Agency, she contacted the Council to request contract cancellation and a refund.
Agency B cited contract terms in its reply to the Council, stating that while client expectations are considered when recommending matches, it does not guarantee that all candidates would fully meet listed criteria. Its matching system selects candidates with an overall compatibility score of 80% or above, calculated based on factors such as income, age, and shared interests, etc. If both parties share common interests or other suitable factors, overall compatibility may reach 80% even if income or age does not fully match. Therefore, Agency B denied breaching the contract and indicated it would continue providing services. The complainant rejected this explanation, reiterating that the staff had claimed many members met her criteria during the sales process, which was the reason she agreed to purchase the service. Having lost confidence in Agency B, she again requested a refund, but the Agency maintained its position. The Council recommended the complainant to consider seeking independent legal advice.
Case 3: Dating App Suspected of Allowing Fake User Registrations
Payment Requested Before Meeting
The complainant paid $378 for a 3-month premium membership on Dating App C. About 1 month later, he received a message from an unacquainted female member inviting him to switch to instant messaging for communication. He discovered that her claimed name differed from that on the app. The female member expressed willingness to meet but requested a $500 bank transfer first. The complainant refused and considered the incident indicative of inadequate member quality control by Dating App C, suspecting that the registration process lacked user identity verification, allowing users to falsify age, income, or use others’ photos to register, thereby undermining service authenticity and reliability. He requested early termination of membership and a refund of remaining fees, but the trader cited terms stating that all paid fees were non-refundable. Unable to reach an agreement, the complainant sought assistance from the Council.
Although Dating App C’s operator did not explain its registration process or member management, it agreed to issue a full refund under the Council’s conciliation, thus resolving the case.
Consumers should note the following when using matching services or dating apps:
- Physical matching services generally include a consultation session. Before purchasing, consumers should understand service fees and duration, as well as service details such as number of recommended candidates, number of dates, and event formats. They should also clarify recommendation standards, such as specifying with the trader which requirements are mandatory and which are optional preferences;
- Consumers should carefully and soberly assess whether promises made by traders are realistic or exaggerated sales tactics;
- After purchasing, maintain good communication with the trader to arrange dates or adjust matching directions;
- Success in matching depends on multiple factors. Consumers and their families should manage expectations and recognise that finding a partner who fully meets all criteria is not guaranteed;
- Whether purchasing offline matching services or online dating apps, consumers should read contract terms thoroughly before transactions, avoid relying solely on sales staff’s verbal statements, and retain receipts and contracts after transactions. Records of communication regarding partner selection criteria, if any, should also be kept as evidence;
- When purchasing paid memberships for dating apps, consumers should check whether auto-renewal settings apply. If they do not intend to continue using the subscription, they must cancel it via the app store or notify the trader in time to avoid unintended renewal and charges. Simply deleting the app does not constitute cancellation of the service.
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/590-matching
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.