Latest news with #Bigos
The Advertiser
3 days ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
Dating site accused of catfishing users with 'free' use
A popular dating website is accused of catfishing users with misleading claims about costs to use its service and cancellation options. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission alleges US-based eHarmony breached consumer law by misleading customers about pricing, renewal, and the duration of memberships since at least 2019. People who sign up for free subscriptions can complete an 80-question compatibility quiz, but can only see blurred profile photos of other members and cannot engage in ongoing communication, the ACCC claims. The only options free members have are liking other profiles, receiving and sending a single reply to a premium member, using the "icebreaker feature", and sending a virtual smiley. This is despite the company advertising itself as a "free dating" platform across five of its webpages, ACCC barrister Oren Bigos told the Federal Court. He referred to headings on eHarmony's website which read, "Free dating site for Australian singles", "free dating site in Australia, eHarmony is your best choice", "Go beyond simple swipes with our free dating experience", and an orange button which read "join free today". "What was available free of charge on the basic membership is a very limited service and ability to interact with other members," Dr Bigos said on Monday. eHarmony's barrister Michael Hodge said of those six pages relied by the ACCC, four were different versions of the same page. When customers signed up for premium memberships, they are given a false impression that the paid period is for six, 12 or 24 months, the watchdog alleges. Unsuspecting users were caught off guard when their subscriptions automatically renewed at the end of their period with no reminders and often at hefty costs since sign-up discounts were not carried over. "Once auto-renewal happens, users are stuck with that amount. They can't apply for refund," Dr Bigos said. He claims the site's subscription page did not mention auto-renewal and that it only appears in small grey text towards the end. But Mr Hodge referred to evidence showing four out of every five subscribers turn off auto-renewal, inferring users read and understood the terms before they signed up. The ACCC alleges eHarmony failed to display accurate minimum and total prices during the purchase process by failing to inform consumers of a mandatory additional fee if they wanted to pay monthly. Users were allegedly charged an extra $3 on top of the advertised price when they opted to pay on a monthly basis. "It is not possible to purchase a 12-month plan and pay only the advertised (price) each month because an additional mandatory fee is charged if a consumer chooses to pay monthly," Dr Bigos said. The ACCC also said the dating site failed to display a single total price users could expect to pay should they sign up, rather they only specified a monthly charge. eHarmony is also accused of misleading customers about their ability to sign up for and cancel premium subscriptions within one month, through headlines reading, "try before you buy" and "you might want to start off with a one month subscription to give us a try". Dr Bigos said the service only offered six, 12 and 24-month options and it was not possible for consumers cancel after one month. Mr Hodge contends information on the site's other pages makes clear what the possible subscription options are and that cancellation refers to any account with eHarmony. The ACCC is seeking penalties, costs and consumer redress. A popular dating website is accused of catfishing users with misleading claims about costs to use its service and cancellation options. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission alleges US-based eHarmony breached consumer law by misleading customers about pricing, renewal, and the duration of memberships since at least 2019. People who sign up for free subscriptions can complete an 80-question compatibility quiz, but can only see blurred profile photos of other members and cannot engage in ongoing communication, the ACCC claims. The only options free members have are liking other profiles, receiving and sending a single reply to a premium member, using the "icebreaker feature", and sending a virtual smiley. This is despite the company advertising itself as a "free dating" platform across five of its webpages, ACCC barrister Oren Bigos told the Federal Court. He referred to headings on eHarmony's website which read, "Free dating site for Australian singles", "free dating site in Australia, eHarmony is your best choice", "Go beyond simple swipes with our free dating experience", and an orange button which read "join free today". "What was available free of charge on the basic membership is a very limited service and ability to interact with other members," Dr Bigos said on Monday. eHarmony's barrister Michael Hodge said of those six pages relied by the ACCC, four were different versions of the same page. When customers signed up for premium memberships, they are given a false impression that the paid period is for six, 12 or 24 months, the watchdog alleges. Unsuspecting users were caught off guard when their subscriptions automatically renewed at the end of their period with no reminders and often at hefty costs since sign-up discounts were not carried over. "Once auto-renewal happens, users are stuck with that amount. They can't apply for refund," Dr Bigos said. He claims the site's subscription page did not mention auto-renewal and that it only appears in small grey text towards the end. But Mr Hodge referred to evidence showing four out of every five subscribers turn off auto-renewal, inferring users read and understood the terms before they signed up. The ACCC alleges eHarmony failed to display accurate minimum and total prices during the purchase process by failing to inform consumers of a mandatory additional fee if they wanted to pay monthly. Users were allegedly charged an extra $3 on top of the advertised price when they opted to pay on a monthly basis. "It is not possible to purchase a 12-month plan and pay only the advertised (price) each month because an additional mandatory fee is charged if a consumer chooses to pay monthly," Dr Bigos said. The ACCC also said the dating site failed to display a single total price users could expect to pay should they sign up, rather they only specified a monthly charge. eHarmony is also accused of misleading customers about their ability to sign up for and cancel premium subscriptions within one month, through headlines reading, "try before you buy" and "you might want to start off with a one month subscription to give us a try". Dr Bigos said the service only offered six, 12 and 24-month options and it was not possible for consumers cancel after one month. Mr Hodge contends information on the site's other pages makes clear what the possible subscription options are and that cancellation refers to any account with eHarmony. The ACCC is seeking penalties, costs and consumer redress. A popular dating website is accused of catfishing users with misleading claims about costs to use its service and cancellation options. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission alleges US-based eHarmony breached consumer law by misleading customers about pricing, renewal, and the duration of memberships since at least 2019. People who sign up for free subscriptions can complete an 80-question compatibility quiz, but can only see blurred profile photos of other members and cannot engage in ongoing communication, the ACCC claims. The only options free members have are liking other profiles, receiving and sending a single reply to a premium member, using the "icebreaker feature", and sending a virtual smiley. This is despite the company advertising itself as a "free dating" platform across five of its webpages, ACCC barrister Oren Bigos told the Federal Court. He referred to headings on eHarmony's website which read, "Free dating site for Australian singles", "free dating site in Australia, eHarmony is your best choice", "Go beyond simple swipes with our free dating experience", and an orange button which read "join free today". "What was available free of charge on the basic membership is a very limited service and ability to interact with other members," Dr Bigos said on Monday. eHarmony's barrister Michael Hodge said of those six pages relied by the ACCC, four were different versions of the same page. When customers signed up for premium memberships, they are given a false impression that the paid period is for six, 12 or 24 months, the watchdog alleges. Unsuspecting users were caught off guard when their subscriptions automatically renewed at the end of their period with no reminders and often at hefty costs since sign-up discounts were not carried over. "Once auto-renewal happens, users are stuck with that amount. They can't apply for refund," Dr Bigos said. He claims the site's subscription page did not mention auto-renewal and that it only appears in small grey text towards the end. But Mr Hodge referred to evidence showing four out of every five subscribers turn off auto-renewal, inferring users read and understood the terms before they signed up. The ACCC alleges eHarmony failed to display accurate minimum and total prices during the purchase process by failing to inform consumers of a mandatory additional fee if they wanted to pay monthly. Users were allegedly charged an extra $3 on top of the advertised price when they opted to pay on a monthly basis. "It is not possible to purchase a 12-month plan and pay only the advertised (price) each month because an additional mandatory fee is charged if a consumer chooses to pay monthly," Dr Bigos said. The ACCC also said the dating site failed to display a single total price users could expect to pay should they sign up, rather they only specified a monthly charge. eHarmony is also accused of misleading customers about their ability to sign up for and cancel premium subscriptions within one month, through headlines reading, "try before you buy" and "you might want to start off with a one month subscription to give us a try". Dr Bigos said the service only offered six, 12 and 24-month options and it was not possible for consumers cancel after one month. Mr Hodge contends information on the site's other pages makes clear what the possible subscription options are and that cancellation refers to any account with eHarmony. The ACCC is seeking penalties, costs and consumer redress. A popular dating website is accused of catfishing users with misleading claims about costs to use its service and cancellation options. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission alleges US-based eHarmony breached consumer law by misleading customers about pricing, renewal, and the duration of memberships since at least 2019. People who sign up for free subscriptions can complete an 80-question compatibility quiz, but can only see blurred profile photos of other members and cannot engage in ongoing communication, the ACCC claims. The only options free members have are liking other profiles, receiving and sending a single reply to a premium member, using the "icebreaker feature", and sending a virtual smiley. This is despite the company advertising itself as a "free dating" platform across five of its webpages, ACCC barrister Oren Bigos told the Federal Court. He referred to headings on eHarmony's website which read, "Free dating site for Australian singles", "free dating site in Australia, eHarmony is your best choice", "Go beyond simple swipes with our free dating experience", and an orange button which read "join free today". "What was available free of charge on the basic membership is a very limited service and ability to interact with other members," Dr Bigos said on Monday. eHarmony's barrister Michael Hodge said of those six pages relied by the ACCC, four were different versions of the same page. When customers signed up for premium memberships, they are given a false impression that the paid period is for six, 12 or 24 months, the watchdog alleges. Unsuspecting users were caught off guard when their subscriptions automatically renewed at the end of their period with no reminders and often at hefty costs since sign-up discounts were not carried over. "Once auto-renewal happens, users are stuck with that amount. They can't apply for refund," Dr Bigos said. He claims the site's subscription page did not mention auto-renewal and that it only appears in small grey text towards the end. But Mr Hodge referred to evidence showing four out of every five subscribers turn off auto-renewal, inferring users read and understood the terms before they signed up. The ACCC alleges eHarmony failed to display accurate minimum and total prices during the purchase process by failing to inform consumers of a mandatory additional fee if they wanted to pay monthly. Users were allegedly charged an extra $3 on top of the advertised price when they opted to pay on a monthly basis. "It is not possible to purchase a 12-month plan and pay only the advertised (price) each month because an additional mandatory fee is charged if a consumer chooses to pay monthly," Dr Bigos said. The ACCC also said the dating site failed to display a single total price users could expect to pay should they sign up, rather they only specified a monthly charge. eHarmony is also accused of misleading customers about their ability to sign up for and cancel premium subscriptions within one month, through headlines reading, "try before you buy" and "you might want to start off with a one month subscription to give us a try". Dr Bigos said the service only offered six, 12 and 24-month options and it was not possible for consumers cancel after one month. Mr Hodge contends information on the site's other pages makes clear what the possible subscription options are and that cancellation refers to any account with eHarmony. The ACCC is seeking penalties, costs and consumer redress.
West Australian
3 days ago
- Business
- West Australian
Dating site accused of catfishing users with 'free' use
A popular dating website is accused of catfishing users with misleading claims about costs to use its service and cancellation options. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission alleges US-based eHarmony breached consumer law by misleading customers about pricing, renewal, and the duration of memberships since at least 2019. People who sign up for free subscriptions can complete an 80-question compatibility quiz, but can only see blurred profile photos of other members and cannot engage in ongoing communication, the ACCC claims. The only options free members have are liking other profiles, receiving and sending a single reply to a premium member, using the "icebreaker feature", and sending a virtual smiley. This is despite the company advertising itself as a "free dating" platform across five of its webpages, ACCC barrister Oren Bigos told the Federal Court. He referred to headings on eHarmony's website which read, "Free dating site for Australian singles", "free dating site in Australia, eHarmony is your best choice", "Go beyond simple swipes with our free dating experience", and an orange button which read "join free today". "What was available free of charge on the basic membership is a very limited service and ability to interact with other members," Dr Bigos said on Monday. eHarmony's barrister Michael Hodge said of those six pages relied by the ACCC, four were different versions of the same page. When customers signed up for premium memberships, they are given a false impression that the paid period is for six, 12 or 24 months, the watchdog alleges. Unsuspecting users were caught off guard when their subscriptions automatically renewed at the end of their period with no reminders and often at hefty costs since sign-up discounts were not carried over. "Once auto-renewal happens, users are stuck with that amount. They can't apply for refund," Dr Bigos said. He claims the site's subscription page did not mention auto-renewal and that it only appears in small grey text towards the end. But Mr Hodge referred to evidence showing four out of every five subscribers turn off auto-renewal, inferring users read and understood the terms before they signed up. The ACCC alleges eHarmony failed to display accurate minimum and total prices during the purchase process by failing to inform consumers of a mandatory additional fee if they wanted to pay monthly. Users were allegedly charged an extra $3 on top of the advertised price when they opted to pay on a monthly basis. "It is not possible to purchase a 12-month plan and pay only the advertised (price) each month because an additional mandatory fee is charged if a consumer chooses to pay monthly," Dr Bigos said. The ACCC also said the dating site failed to display a single total price users could expect to pay should they sign up, rather they only specified a monthly charge. eHarmony is also accused of misleading customers about their ability to sign up for and cancel premium subscriptions within one month, through headlines reading, "try before you buy" and "you might want to start off with a one month subscription to give us a try". Dr Bigos said the service only offered six, 12 and 24-month options and it was not possible for consumers cancel after one month. Mr Hodge contends information on the site's other pages makes clear what the possible subscription options are and that cancellation refers to any account with eHarmony. The ACCC is seeking penalties, costs and consumer redress.
Perth Now
3 days ago
- Business
- Perth Now
Dating site accused of catfishing users with 'free' use
A popular dating website is accused of catfishing users with misleading claims about costs to use its service and cancellation options. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission alleges US-based eHarmony breached consumer law by misleading customers about pricing, renewal, and the duration of memberships since at least 2019. People who sign up for free subscriptions can complete an 80-question compatibility quiz, but can only see blurred profile photos of other members and cannot engage in ongoing communication, the ACCC claims. The only options free members have are liking other profiles, receiving and sending a single reply to a premium member, using the "icebreaker feature", and sending a virtual smiley. This is despite the company advertising itself as a "free dating" platform across five of its webpages, ACCC barrister Oren Bigos told the Federal Court. He referred to headings on eHarmony's website which read, "Free dating site for Australian singles", "free dating site in Australia, eHarmony is your best choice", "Go beyond simple swipes with our free dating experience", and an orange button which read "join free today". "What was available free of charge on the basic membership is a very limited service and ability to interact with other members," Dr Bigos said on Monday. eHarmony's barrister Michael Hodge said of those six pages relied by the ACCC, four were different versions of the same page. When customers signed up for premium memberships, they are given a false impression that the paid period is for six, 12 or 24 months, the watchdog alleges. Unsuspecting users were caught off guard when their subscriptions automatically renewed at the end of their period with no reminders and often at hefty costs since sign-up discounts were not carried over. "Once auto-renewal happens, users are stuck with that amount. They can't apply for refund," Dr Bigos said. He claims the site's subscription page did not mention auto-renewal and that it only appears in small grey text towards the end. But Mr Hodge referred to evidence showing four out of every five subscribers turn off auto-renewal, inferring users read and understood the terms before they signed up. The ACCC alleges eHarmony failed to display accurate minimum and total prices during the purchase process by failing to inform consumers of a mandatory additional fee if they wanted to pay monthly. Users were allegedly charged an extra $3 on top of the advertised price when they opted to pay on a monthly basis. "It is not possible to purchase a 12-month plan and pay only the advertised (price) each month because an additional mandatory fee is charged if a consumer chooses to pay monthly," Dr Bigos said. The ACCC also said the dating site failed to display a single total price users could expect to pay should they sign up, rather they only specified a monthly charge. eHarmony is also accused of misleading customers about their ability to sign up for and cancel premium subscriptions within one month, through headlines reading, "try before you buy" and "you might want to start off with a one month subscription to give us a try". Dr Bigos said the service only offered six, 12 and 24-month options and it was not possible for consumers cancel after one month. Mr Hodge contends information on the site's other pages makes clear what the possible subscription options are and that cancellation refers to any account with eHarmony. The ACCC is seeking penalties, costs and consumer redress.
Yahoo
30-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Maine high court strikes down law that allowed lawsuits for decades-long sex abuse claims
The highest court in Maine ruled Tuesday against a law that retroactively removed the statute of limitations for civil child sexual abuse lawsuits, concluding a tense chapter in a yearslong legal battle. The ruling comes after dozens of people filed civil lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland alleging they were sexually assaulted as children by the clergy with allegations going back as far as the 1950s. Some alleged victims were able to sue after state legislators passed a law in 2021 that retroactively removed a statute of limitations, which determines how much time can pass after a crime before a person is no longer allowed to file a lawsuit. The diocese challenged the lawsuits, calling the 2021 statute unconstitutional. On Tuesday, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court agreed. Attorney Michael Bigos, who said he represents about 100 victims affected by the ruling, told USA TODAY he was disappointed by the court's decision. "Of course, there is no statute of limitations on the enduring pain caused by childhood sexual abuse," said Bigos. "These survivors deserve accountability from those that enabled child sex abuse and to receive long overdue justice." The Rev. James Ruggieri, who serves as the bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, said in a statement after the ruling that the diocese will continue to dedicate resources to examine claims of abuse ‒ regardless of when it reportedly happened ‒ and provide counseling and support services to survivors. "The reprehensible conduct of certain clergy during that era represents a profoundly painful time that still has effects we all experience today," Ruggieri said. "A degree of uncertainty still remains and in the coming days, weeks, and months, in consultation with diocesan, parish, and lay advisors, I will prayerfully assess the path forward for the diocese. I am hopeful that this decision will allow us as a diocese to commit to strengthening the core mission of the Church in Maine with even greater humility and devotion." Catholic Church sex abuse scandal: Los Angeles Archdiocese agrees to pay $880 million to settle sexual abuse claims In a lengthy opinion released this week, the court acknowledged the long-lasting consequences of child sexual abuse but said that the 2021 statute in question was outside of the state legislature's authority. Maine in 2000 passed a law that eliminated time limits on civil child sexual assault lawsuits, with the exception of claims that had already expired under the previous law. About two decades later, the state legislature passed a statute that said people could file lawsuits even for claims that had expired before the 2000 law. The state Supreme Court struck down the 2021 amendment this week. "There can be no doubt that we as a society have gained a new understanding of the effect of trauma and the delays that it can cause in the ability of a victim to pursue a cause of action," the court wrote. The justices argued that while the new framework "provides support" for eliminating time limits on civil sexual abuse claims, the state legislature didn't have the power to retroactively allow lawsuits if they would impede someone's rights. After the time limit has expired, a defendant has a "right to be free of that claim" ‒ a right that the 2021 law violates, the court determined. Justices Wayne Douglas and Rick Lawrence dissented. They drew on research that found the severe trauma of child sexual assault was distinctive from other types of abuse and could take decades to process. The two justices said the 2021 law was a "reasonable legislative response consistent with due process that eliminates a procedural bar" that had previously prevented alleged victims from seeking relief in court. Before the statute of limitations for civil child sexual abuse claims was eliminated on Aug. 11, 2000, the time limit for such cases was 12 years, and the clock started ticking after an alleged victim became an adult regardless of when the abuse happened, Bigos said. Since the time limit removal no longer applies retroactively, he noted the state Supreme Court's decision has established a cutoff for such claims. Bigos told USA TODAY he expects the court's decision will, in effect, block people born before Aug. 11, 1970, from filing civil child sexual abuse claims in Maine. After the 1970 cutoff, Bigos said people would be able to file civil lawsuits in Maine for child sexual abuse without facing time constraints, but he noted the court's decision could impact hundreds of people. For cases affected by this week's ruling, Bigos said he will pivot to litigating the church's "decades of cover-ups." He alleges the cases of abuse go as far back as 1954, adding that the slew of cases shows the diocese "knew about rampant sexual abuse by its priests, nuns, and teachers for decades and chose to protect these known predators instead of the children in their care." This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Maine high court says 2021 child sex abuse law is unconstitutional
USA Today
30-01-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Maine high court strikes down law that allowed lawsuits for decades-long sex abuse claims
The highest court in Maine ruled Tuesday against a law that retroactively removed the statute of limitations for civil child sexual abuse lawsuits, concluding a tense chapter in a yearslong legal battle. The ruling comes after dozens of people filed civil lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland alleging they were sexually assaulted as children by the clergy with allegations going back as far as the 1950s. Some alleged victims were able to sue after state legislators passed a law in 2021 that retroactively removed a statute of limitations, which determines how much time can pass after a crime before a person is no longer allowed to file a lawsuit. The diocese challenged the lawsuits, calling the 2021 statute unconstitutional. On Tuesday, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court agreed. Attorney Michael Bigos, who said he represents about 100 victims affected by the ruling, told USA TODAY he was disappointed by the court's decision. "Of course, there is no statute of limitations on the enduring pain caused by childhood sexual abuse," said Bigos. "These survivors deserve accountability from those that enabled child sex abuse and to receive long overdue justice." Reverend James Ruggieri, who serves as the bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, said in a statement after the ruling that the diocese will continue to dedicate resources to examine claims of abuse — regardless of when it reportedly happened — and provide counseling and support services to survivors. "The reprehensible conduct of certain clergy during that era represents a profoundly painful time that still has effects we all experience today," Ruggieri said. "A degree of uncertainty still remains and in the coming days, weeks, and months, in consultation with diocesan, parish, and lay advisors, I will prayerfully assess the path forward for the diocese. I am hopeful that this decision will allow us as a diocese to commit to strengthening the core mission of the Church in Maine with even greater humility and devotion." Catholic Church sex abuse scandal:Los Angeles Archdiocese agrees to pay $880 million to settle sexual abuse claims Ruling blocks decades-long child sex abuse lawsuits In a lengthy opinion released this week, the court acknowledged the long-lasting consequences of child sexual abuse but said that the 2021 statute in question was outside of the state legislature's authority. Maine in 2000 passed a law that eliminated time limits on civil child sexual assault lawsuits, with the exception of claims that had already expired under the previous law. About two decades later, the state legislature passed a statute that said people could file lawsuits even for claims that had expired before the 2000 law. The state Supreme Court struck down the 2021 amendment this week. "There can be no doubt that we as a society have gained a new understanding of the effect of trauma and the delays that it can cause in the ability of a victim to pursue a cause of action," the court wrote. The justices argued that while the new framework "provides support" for eliminating time limits on civil sexual abuse claims, the state legislature didn't have the power to retroactively allow lawsuits if they would impede someone's rights. After the time limit has expired, a defendant has a "right to be free of that claim" — a right that the 2021 law violates, the court determined. Plaintiffs' attorney plans to pivot abuse lawsuits Justices Wayne Douglas and Rick Lawrence dissented. They drew on research that found the severe trauma of child sexual assault was distinctive from other types of abuse and could take decades to process. The two justices said the 2021 law was a "reasonable legislative response consistent with due process that eliminates a procedural bar" that had previously prevented alleged victims from seeking relief in court. Before the statute of limitations for civil child sexual abuse claims was eliminated on Aug. 11, 2000, the time limit for such cases was 12 years, and the clock started ticking after an alleged victim became an adult regardless of when the abuse happened, Bigos said. Since the time limit removal no longer applies retroactively, he noted the state Supreme Court's decision has established a cutoff for such claims. Bigos told USA TODAY he expects the court's decision will, in effect, block people born before Aug. 11, 1970, from filing civil child sexual abuse claims in Maine. After the 1970 cutoff, Bigos said people would be able to file civil lawsuits in Maine for child sexual abuse without facing time constraints, but he noted the court's decision could impact hundreds of people. For cases affected by this week's ruling, Bigos said he will pivot to litigating the church's "decades of cover-ups." He alleges the cases of abuse go as far back as 1954, adding that the slew of cases shows the diocese "knew about rampant sexual abuse by its priests, nuns, and teachers for decades and chose to protect these known predators instead of the children in their care."
