An Australian court has determined that eHarmony deceived users regarding the costs of its memberships.

      Australia’s Federal Court has determined that eHarmony misled customers regarding the pricing and terms of its dating memberships, following numerous complaints made to the competition regulator. The findings highlight various design choices, now categorized as dark patterns, that eHarmony applied to a subscription service that automatically renewed at a significantly higher rate.

      The renewal conditions were the most notable aspect of the decision. Memberships automatically extended for another 12 months at up to five times the original price, and the court concluded that eHarmony did not adequately disclose this information.

      The term “free” was also misleading. eHarmony promoted free dating even though users were unable to communicate with others without making a payment, which the court deemed deceptive. Additionally, while the site offered one-month membership options, the minimum term available was actually six months, and it incorrectly claimed that early cancellation was feasible.

      Moreover, the pricing display was problematic. eHarmony listed monthly fees without indicating compulsory extra charges for those opting for monthly payments and failed to present the total minimum cost next to the monthly figure, as required by Australian Consumer Law.

      This last obligation is a clear legal requirement rather than a subjective assessment. The single-price rule is designed to ensure that a prominent monthly rate does not obscure the actual spending commitment a consumer is making.

      Dating services have a unique structural incentive that most subscription businesses do not, as a satisfied customer typically means they will leave. This shifts the focus onto retention strategies instead of product quality, which is where the behavior in this case aligns.

      The misconduct occurred from 2019 until at least mid-2024, with some practices continuing until July of that year. Over this five-year period, a significant number of Australian consumers were impacted by the company’s operations.

      “The ACCC pursued this action following hundreds of consumer complaints regarding fees from eHarmony,” stated commissioner Luke Woodward. Such a high volume of complaints typically prompts a regulator to transition from merely monitoring a sector to taking legal action against a company within it.

      Financial penalties have yet to be determined. The court will address penalties, consumer compensation, and other orders in a separate process, meaning the significant financial consequences are still pending.

      Australia’s regulatory framework is stricter than it may appear from the outside. The single-price requirement and the ban on misleading conduct do not necessitate proof of actual deception, only that the representation could mislead, which is a lower threshold than many companies anticipate.

      The ACCC has been particularly proactive against subscription practices, having also taken Microsoft to court over allegedly misleading Microsoft 365 pricing. Australia has emerged as one of the more assertive jurisdictions in tackling this specific category of conduct, alongside the FTC, which has pursued a $250 million subscription operation and begun an investigation into Shein’s use of dark patterns.

      What connects these cases is not deception in a traditional sense but the design of the interface. No one at eHarmony was required to compose a false statement to achieve this result, as the same outcome can occur through the positioning of terms, the size of the text, and the number of steps needed for a user to cancel.

      The impact of a penalty on behavior will depend entirely on its amount relative to the revenue generated by the conduct. Five years of renewals at up to five times the original price is considerable, and a fine below that would merely be viewed as a cost of doing business.

      eHarmony has not made any public comments regarding the findings. The hearing on penalties will reveal the financial implications for the company and whether the amount is significant enough to influence how other dating apps display their pricing.