The dating platform was found to have deceived customers with hidden fees and unauthorized automatic renewals.
AI-generated summary
The ACCC brought proceedings against eHarmony after receiving hundreds of consumer complaints regarding subscription practices. The court examined 1.3 million user registrations between 2019 and 2024.
Users of eHarmony's website and app, the fourth largest of its kind in Australia, were misled with fake free dating services and then forced to pay, the Federal Court of Australia has found.
Users of its free basic membership were unable to talk to other single people online without paying, the court found.
Those who paid for a one-month premium membership were then charged for a six-month subscription, had to pay hidden and additional mandatory fees and were unable to cancel payments that automatically renewed, even after profiles were deleted.
"Try before you buy — and no pressure to sign up," a message on the free dating page read.
"We love our site and want you to enjoy it too, which is why we encourage you to sign up for free, review your matches and get to know us a little better."
It was a confusing statement, Justice Christopher Horan said on Tuesday when he found the company deceived its Australian customer base.
"I consider that such an assumption or conclusion was erroneous. Accordingly, the conduct was misleading or deceptive," he said.
"The one-month representation amounted to conduct that was liable to mislead the public.
"I accept the ACCC's submission that it was not possible to use the eHarmony Platform as a Basic member, free of charge, to 'date' other members by engaging in ongoing communications for the purposes of developing a romantic relationship."
The court found about 1.3 million users from Australia registered for a basic membership between 2019 and 2024.
One user who gave evidence to the court — and cannot be named for legal reasons — signed up for a six-month membership at a one-time discounted payment of $155.64, but deleted her profile two months later after failing to meet anyone.
When the six-month period expired, eHarmony renewed her subscription and billed her credit card $478.80.
She told eHarmony she didn't wish to continue her subscription and cancelled her credit card when the platform refused her request.
The company, which refers to itself as "the No.1 trusted dating app" referred the woman to a debt collection agency.
The proceedings were brought before the federal court after the consumer watchdog became aware of the repeated pattern.
The ACCC received hundreds of complaints from consumers, commissioner Luke Woodward said.
"Dating platforms are an important part of Australians' social lives,'' he said on Tuesday.
"Many people use them to meet others and form valuable connections.
"Consumers were not adequately informed about their memberships' duration or that the membership would automatically renew, including, for many, at a much higher price."
The court will decide on penalties and consumer redress at a later date.
eHarmony has been contacted for comment.
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
The court will determine specific financial penalties and consumer redress.
Very likely · Within months
Brisbane City Council has implemented a ban on the non-consensual use of camera-enabled devices, including AI smart glasses, across its 21 public pools. The move aims to address growing privacy concerns and protect children from surreptitious recording.
Gold Coast City Council has applied to the High Court to appeal a ruling that found luxury beachfront apartments do not improve housing affordability, warning the decision disrupts approvals across Queensland.
Two former organisers of Hong Kong's Tiananmen Square vigil, Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, were convicted of inciting subversion under a national security law, facing up to 10 years in prison.
A Queensland judge has permanently stayed criminal charges against two police officers, Andrew David Couchman and Ulrich Weiss, ruling that a contaminated witness statement made a fair trial impossible. The case involved the alleged assault of a prisoner in 2024.
The Australian government is suing 3M for $2 billion in Federal Court, alleging the chemical manufacturer intentionally withheld evidence that its firefighting foam contained toxic, persistent PFAS chemicals used by the ADF.

As week two of the criminal trial against Alan Jones concludes, cross-examination of the first complainant ends amid timeline inconsistencies and witness testimony.