Regulating dating sites
The problems for users
We have been going through dating sites as part of our Dating Sites Project. The original purpose was to back up another piece of work, coming soon, on ‘telling’ when you’ve been groomed, helping people to ‘tell’ appropriately, effectively and safely - a minefield. (Depending on who you tell, you may effectively become a whistleblower, and that doesn’t always end well.)
Working through the sites for information on where to report, I had not anticipated the enormous volume of dating sites and places purporting to be dating sites and sending you somewhere else - usually another site owned by the same people. Neither had I anticipated so many multi-sited ownership companies.
Dating sites/apps are a cut-throat business in which people become business models, business statistics and revenue streams in their search for that most basic of human needs: human company.
From being tiny people, we’ve been fed the ‘happily ever after’ model. This has been based around two, mainly heterosexual people, finding each other, big wedding, ride off into the sundet as if the wedding was the end of the hard work (the search) rather than the beginning of the hard work (supporting each others through life’s maze.) What dating sites do brilliantly is acknowledge the different shapes and ways that relationships look.
It’s challenging. Whilst I personally might feel that wedding vows are sacred, I have to accept was still legally married whilst dating - my husband and I were separated fpr a long, long time before we finally nailed our divorce. Like most divorces it was slow because it was painful. Like most divorces, our relationship was reduced to finances and child custody. So whilst I may well go all pursey lipped and disapproving of dating sites deliberately matching married people:
(a) I have no right - look what I was doing!
(b) the more logical side of my poor exhausted brain is saying: if there’s no deceit, if all parties - spouses and ‘affairs’ are aware of the situation, where’s the harm?
( See also 2018 commentary on the TV series Wanderlust. )
And ‘therein lies the rub’ as they say. It’s a moral judgement, and when it comes to morality, no-one has the monopoly on right and wrong. This is what dating sites must contend with when putting in services and moderation. It’s a minefield that most have necessarily sidestepped, hiding behind data protection and referals to avoid becoming embroiled..
But the harm done to people who are groomed falsely into relationships, whether via a dating site or not, is devastating, and if you’re selling a dream of happiness, surely you owe a duty of care to the people who trust you to try and deliver?
As our Dating Sites Project progresses, the appalling reviews of dating sites on TrustPilot are astounding. In no other industry would 2/5 be an acceptable review score - but for dating sites, that’s not low! (May 2026)
There are a lot of manipulated articles online claiming that a certain dating site is amongst the top x number, listing popular ones (with their faults, of course), but somewhat suspiciously listing a site you’ve never, or rarely, heard of as the leader of the pack. This indicates consumers are probably being mislead.
AI can dating sites in terms of shaping their offering and creating better matches. But it’s also being used for harm:
Fake personas that chat with people as if they were real (I signed up for one site that, had the matches been real would have meant that Newbury, where I lived at the time, was ‘Hot Hunk’ central, and any woman wanting to date should get herself down there. They were, of course, all AI, easily flushed out with a requaet to meet for a coffee. This was site sanctioned, rtheir business model - try arguing with an AI bot for a refund!
Other sites ask for verification, but clever scammers have worked their way around this one, using AI to create fake ID.
Deepfakes, taking an image and ‘undressing’ them, for example.
Theft of profile picures for scamming.
Whilst data protection and privacy is a big issue for users, it creates a ‘schism’. Sites need data to spot behaviours, whilst simultaneously needing to gather/generate data on behaviours to spot abuse.
Dating sites are in a difficult position when it comes to reports of bad behaviour: there is potential to misuse the function. They have no regulatory teeth or powers of sanction.
There has traditionally been a reluctance to cooperate with the police. It’s occassionally difficult legal ground, as well as being subject to data privacy laws.
For a dating business to be considered a success, it’s customers will leave. So it’s almost against the sites’ interests for a match to be successful.
There are career dating scammers who are circumventing systems with changes of names, or just site hopping. Which isn’t hard given the number of them.
Some sites are misusing personal data by sharing it with other sites. Although this has resulted in court cases in the UK, it still appears to be happening when you read the small print! We’ve tried to highlight this where we believe it may be happening.
Dating sites are sometimes used as a front for trafficking, both adults and minors.
Profile thefts, coercion and identity trafficking - a person is groomed or trafficked into verifying their identity on a site, starting the conversation and then being forced to relinquish that site to organised criminals.
PickUp Artists (PUAs, explanation to follow - watch this blog) hiding their real intent.
Sextortion
And this barely touches the surface…..
We’ve seen case after case where the Police have said they’re unable to act because their requests to sites for information have no been responded to (yet). We probably need to run an FOI request to see how genuinely prevalent this is to back up this assertion - people are generally fairly frustrated by other organisational inaction by the time they arrive with us so our experience may not be indicative of most people’s experience. (Another one for our ‘to do’ list Dating Sites Project Yet?)
With this little list of abuses, and it’s by no means exhaustive, it’s small wonder that dating sites area often lumped together with high-risk industries such as adult services and gambling.
Not the romantic ending many are hoping for.
At least the ODDA is unifying the industry to take SOME action, and seems determined to raise industry standards.
The Australian Model
In a rather grand announcement, Australian announced that it was “leading the way in dating site regulation”.
“Online dating is now the most common way to meet a partner in Australia, however the level of violence and abuse experienced by users of these platforms is deeply concerning. That is why we are taking the steps needed to ensure a safer experience for Australians using online dating platforms,” said the Australian Minister for Communications, the Hon Michelle Rowland MP.
In October of last year, Australia introduced a new code for dating sites, still voluntary, that came into effect in April of this year.
The code requires dating apps to:
Have systems to detect potential incidents of online-enabled harm
Takections against users who have violated a company’s online safety policies, including terminating their accounts across all services operated by that company;
Have prominent and transparent complaint and reporting mechanisms;
File regular transparency reports detailing the number of Australian accounts terminated and content moderation processes;
Provide more support resources on safe dating practices and online enabled harms;
Proactively engaget with Australian law enforcement, including escalation of complaints where there is an imminent threat to safety.
Apps that signed up, indeed helped to found the code, include: Tinder, Hinge, OK Cupid, Plenty Of Fish, Bumble, Grindr, eHarmony, RSVP (Australian app, although there is a dating agency in London with this name), Meet-Me and Zoosk.
We are a way off this in the UK, but in any case, this is only a voluntary code. It’s a fantastic start, a move in the right direction, start, but I’ve seen enough around the industry to be a little cynical. It’s basically dating companies heading off regulation by dealing with the basics first - basics that they probably should already have viewed in many cases as their duty of care. The measures are well overdue, but the question has to be asked: why weren’t they built in as standard? Well done to the Australians for making some progress, and in fact on most of these sites now you’ll find a footnote link for Australian users.
And despite my obvious cynicism, I thoroughly welcome the recognition of the harms that are caused being far more than money: the code defines online enabled harm as “any online or physical world activity between endusers results in sexual misconduct against a participating dating site end-user (or other directly impacted individual), any serious non-sexual harm, and any attempt by an end-user to gain online or physical world access to children to harm them.” Better still, the code recognises that harm isn’t only financial.
,However, the code only applies to ‘serious harm’ which, in turn “must relate to harm which goes beyond emotional reactions such as those of only distress, grief, fear or anger”. In fairness, this is derived from the Government’s eSafety regulatory guidance. However, it’s very nebulous. Would PTSD be seen as caused by stress? Would panic attacks be considered a separate harm from `distress? Would fear of going out be separate to just fear? And how is it acceptable to create fear in another user?
The nitty gritty of the Australian act is this: dating services must now include information on any restrictions that they impose in relation to the use of their service in their terms and conditions. They must prohibit the upload of illegal content (which includes sexual misconduct) and non-consensual intimate images. They must detect, moderate and investigate reports of wrongdoing “to the extent reasonably practicable based on the technological capability of its dating service”. In some ways its fair enough, but means that smaller dating sites may not be as well protected.
When the people who helped establish the code are the dating giants, Tinder, Hinge, Plenty Of Fish, eHarmony etc, it’s hard not to believe that this plays better for them than smaller niche sites who may not have the funding for monitoring techology -and mostly the code refers only to take downs of content. The cynic in me sees this as the big players using the system to protect their position.
The rules only apply to Australian end-users even if a site operates multi nationally.
Don’t get me wrong - this action is a start. I absolutely applaud the move.
But it’s a highly biased one, designed to be acceptable to the industry. People deserve better when they lay their hearts and lives on the line. Looking for love shouldn’t be a risky business.
THE ODDA (Online Dating and Discovery Association)
The ODDA exists as “the global voice in the online dating and social discovery industry. Our mission is to promote safe, responsible and enjoyable dating and social experiences for everyone.”
The important bit to note is that are paid for by the dating industry and are concerned with making improvements fot the industry. Given our finding regarding customer satisfaction, this is a very worthy goal.
We may at some point analyse the data to see if membership is an indicator of better customer satifaction, but we have a lot of work to do, and perhaps we can ask the OODA to do the legwork - it’s in their interest.
So, a couple of things to note with regards to the ODDA:
The ODDA is a private company, in the UK at least, acting as an industry association. Similar to the SRA (Solicitors Regulatory Authority) the ODDA is paid for by members and represents the industry rather than its users. Their remit is maintaining good opinion of the industry.
Membership is not obligatory. Even within the same parent group, some sites do not belong. It is not obligatory.
The ODDA does not have legal powers - the ultimate sanction is to be kicked out. (And, of course, if they kick out a member group, they’re kicking out a customer.)
Their partner organisations are primarily concerned with data/identity management - compliance tools.
ODDA membership can be seen as a willingness to improve industry standards, but they don’t deal with consumer complaints.
They will advise all of their members if a convicted sex offender is found on one of their members' services. However, they won’t act unless the person reporting provides documentation confirming this person is a convicted sex offender such as a court document, or an online news article: Link to report convicted sex offenders.
Calling for Better Solutions
How hard would it be to have a single checking service, one that all dating sites pay, either in bulk or per user, to verify details?A communal effort would make banned from one, banned from all easier. For the same IP address used across multiple dating sites to be spotted. Most people are apparently signed up to more than one site.
We are only part of the way through our dating sites project, but can already see so many changes are needed
Is this a role for a regulatory body? Whilst my initial reaction was no, I’ve replaced this with ‘Why not?’.
there’s a benefit to consumers - things being checked, sign up once and once only, and data isn’t being held across multipe sites. (Most dating site users don’t register with just one site.)
A regulator could easily handle escalated concerns, and, with a central databank of verified data identities, dating sites would certainly start to feel like safer places, and maybe even stem the reported tide of people eschewing dating apps and electing in person dating events in their place.
What else might a Dating Sites Regulator do?
We’ve not finished our research, but in addition to a regulator, even within the remit of a egulator, our list of things that need changing already includes the following:
Data protection: Any syndicating of data must be declared and users expressly given the choice of any sites their data will appear on. Our belief is that sharing data without explicit consent (not just terms and conditions) breaches GDPR rules, is unethical, and can cause real trauma and harm to individuals. A. regulator could enforce this and dating sites stand to lose their licenses if they fail to act appropriately.
Identity requirements: Our research has demonstrated a clear link between ‘catfishing’ and fraud. There should be mechanisms on each site for confirming that identities are genuine, check ages, and check criminal convictions for violence and/or sexual assault. As noted above, if the regulator provided a verified, single identity sign in for all dating sites, bad players might be deterred and banned from one, banned from all becomes feasible. And the technology for checking identity, criminality and fraud becomes immediately ubiquitous. On a ‘one for all’ basis paid for by every dating site licensed to operate, the cost becomes simply an operating cost, not a crippling expense, and pooled resources will allow for technology innovation.
A requirement to clearly mark AI chatbots and agents as such (a duty that should be passed on to users): A regulator should be able to fine both companies and users who breach this rule.
Investigation requirements: If a user has been reported to a site for toxic behaviour, the site should investigate. ThFor privacy reasons this can be impossible, but a regulator with some real powers would have just cause to investigate.
Full co-operation with the UK Police: If the police are investigating the user of a dating site for fraud, violence or sexual assault, full co-operation should be obligatory, and the investigated individuals flagged by systems so that if reports are received from other users, that information can be acted upon/reported. This could save lives. A regulator could co-ordinate this cross-site. If data is held in silos, daters like Raymond McDonald, The Tinder Swindler and any number of non-existent army generals and oil rig workers would find it harder to operate.
Banned from one, banned from all: Whilst people may occassionally do something that upsets someone personally, anyone with repeated patterns of harmful behaviour (unsolicited nudes, false representation, covert grooming, personal fraud etc), a regulator should investigate and keep a (challengeable) blacklist which dating sites should be required to implement.
There are other issues into which we haven’t delved - it’s not that they are not on our radar, more that they are complex and need specialist attention.
Your Opinion Counts
Our blog goes largely uncommented on, but on this occassion more than ever, how you feel about these measures matters.
What issues and solutions we’ve missed are important. For example, will proposed digital ID proposals be enough?
If we’re going to push for a regulator as CAAGe, we want to push for the right one, regulating the right things, with a strong remit and some solid teeth.
Done the right way it could benefit sites as well as users by taking a burden from them, and keep users far more safe.
Lord knows there are enough poor regulators out there. Please help us get it right and prevent more harm.
