Two senators from opposing parties are pressing the chief executive of Match Group to explain how the online dating site is policing its website from fake profiles and other fraud. In a letter addressed to the parent of Tinder, Hinge, OkCupid and Plenty of Fish, Senators Marsha Blackburn and Maggie Hassan argue that design decisions and weak enforcement can cause users to become prey for criminals who take advantage of trust to steal money.
The five-page inquiry focuses on whether Match’s business practices and the algorithms in its data-driven dating service are used to deceive people into relationships with paid subscribers — or into being churned through the subscription model, multiannual contracts and other practices that can as much as double the cost of finding love. And it insists on seeing CEO Mandy Ginsberg bend over backwards to prove her company is good for America today.
The lawmakers also seek specific metrics and internal materials by a firm deadline.
What the senators are seeking from Match
Blackburn and Hassan demand a detailed accounting of how many suspected scam accounts are being spotted and kicked off the platform, how quickly those removals occur, and what percent of impostor profiles are detected before they “engage anyone.” They wonder whether recommendation systems or paid boosts could amplify scam accounts, and what guardrails are in place to prevent that exposure from happening.
The letter seeks answers about methods of identity verification — such as photo or ID checks — and whether those measures are optional or mandatory. The senators are seeking details on how frequently users report romance scams, the protocols for responding to user reports, whether victims are reimbursed by Match for fraudulent charges, and how the company is working with banks, law enforcement and telecom companies to disrupt money flows and account takeovers.
They also press the company on its internal accountability: the size of trust-and-safety teams, investments in machine learning to identify solicitation patterns, findings from independent audits, and any adjustments to algorithms or messaging prompts meant to curb off-platform migration, a frequent step in romance cons.
An expensive and evergreen category of fraud
How much money is involved?
Romance scams are a big-dollar crime. Median losses are higher for romance-related scams than for any other category of fraud tracked by the F.T.C., with consumers reporting losing more than $201 million to scammers in 2019. The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center also tallies confidence/romance scams in which losses exceeded $650 million, highlighting the magnitude of these schemes — not to mention the emotional and financial damage they cause.
The playbook is the same: A scammer establishes a relationship on an app, moves it to private text and chat, as the rapport grows stronger, coaxing a trusting — oftentimes older — target to send money or cryptocurrency. Derivatives such as so-called “pig-butchering” mix romance and investment propositions into months of manipulation. UK authorities, including the Action Fraud and National Fraud Intelligence Bureau, have also recorded tens of millions of pounds in annual losses from romance scams with many victims too embarrassed to come forward.
Match Group’s history and safety tools today
Match has faced scrutiny before. An earlier F.T.C. complaint said the company had engaged in deceptive advertising around how much traffic its products received from suspect accounts, widening concerns about content quality and fraud defenses. While Match has added detailed safety features — including photo verification, automated scans for suspected solicitation patterns and warning signs (scammers “dislike you very much”), easier in-app reporting — critics say scammers don’t exactly struggle to get on the service, especially when that verification remains optional.
On Tinder and Hinge, for example, users can receive interstitial warnings if messages contain payment requests or the conversation quickly turns to requesting another messaging tool on a platform outside of the app. Some products use machine learning to scan for linguistic and behavioral cues associated with grooming, love-bombing or attempts to isolate users. The key issue the senators raise is whether these measures are tough enough, universally applied and based on transparent data.
Why platform design choices matter for user safety
Recommendation systems decide who sees whom; adding ever so much more can amplify a malicious account’s reach tremendously.
Safety experts say there are three tactics that make the biggest difference:
- Requiring account verification for accounts reaching broad audiences
- Adding friction when a user tries to leave Twitter quickly, deterring bad actors from moving off-platform and avoiding detection
- Being proactive in disrupting keywords or behavior tied to money requests
There are clear feedback loops — where users can see results from reports — that lead to more reporting and less repeat victimization.
Another void is found in cross-industry data sharing. Banks frequently notice odd transactions before platforms realize it’s a scam and telecom carriers can crack down on SIM-swaps and number-hopping. The senators’ questions suggest a longing for more coordinated response so that red flags seen by banks, platforms and law enforcement can be fused into earlier, stronger interventions.
What comes next for Match, users, and regulators
Depending on Match’s response, the inquiry could result in hearings, new transparency requirements and even the passage of targeted legislation around identity verification, off-platform messaging, or a clearer legal recourse for victims of bad actors who use dating apps. At the very least, the letter reflects bipartisan impatience with what it describes as vague safety claims and a push for hard numbers: how many scammers are caught; how quickly; and how often users are protected before any money changes hands.
For Match Group, demonstrating diligence will entail publishing results — not just adding features. And, for users, it’s a reminder to be wary of anyone who rushes emotional intimacy, refuses to talk on the phone or video chat, takes conversations off-app — or mentions money. The senators are sending a message: preventing romance scams isn’t optional hygiene for dating platforms; safeguarding their product through reducing harm to users is part of their business model.
