The PositiveSingles lawsuit, explained

What the cases were about

Every proceeding on this page turns on the same two texts. The PositiveSingles registration page of that era promised a 100% Confidential and Comfortable Community and stated We do not disclose, sell, or rent any personally identifiable information to any third party organizations. The Terms and Conditions, meanwhile, said that profiles may be shared with other sites within the SuccessfulMatch network and that by posting a profile the member consented to placement on other network sites at the discretion of SuccessfulMatch, without further notice. Both quotations are taken from the federal court's April 16, 2014 order, which recites them from the record.

The same order describes how the network worked: SuccessfulMatch let affiliate partners open niche dating sites and plugged them into one central membership database, so a profile created on PositiveSingles could be viewed on affiliated sites. The affiliate domains named in the order include Blackpoz.com, HivAidsDating.com, HIVGayMen.com, AllLifestyle4BBW.com, and ChristianSafeHaven.com. For someone whose profile listed an STI status, the gap between the promise and the database design is the whole story.

Canada, 2013: the privacy finding

Three PositiveSingles members complained to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada after finding their profiles, with names, photos, and medical condition, on nearly 60 other dating sites they had never heard of. One complainant documented her profile on 57 other websites, including sites aimed at conditions she did not have, such as AIDSCase.com and SyphilisDating.com.

The commissioner's report, PIPEDA Report of Findings #2013-003 dated July 11, 2013, drew a careful line. Because everything lived in one database controlled by SuccessfulMatch, the profiles had not legally been "disclosed" to third parties. But the members could not have anticipated their profiles surfacing across the network, were offered no way to opt in or out, and so the complainants had not provided their consent for their personal information to be used in this way. The office also found that some registered members’ personal information could be accessed by non-members via simple searches on a common search engine, which meant safeguards fell short too. The complaint was ruled well-founded and resolved.

"Resolved" is the part most summaries skip. The report records that, following the office's recommendations, the organization now explicitly informs users of the tiered relationship between the parent company and the affiliated websites under its control; it changed how it notifies users before they post a profile, so that information is given at key decision points such as registration; and it confirmed that there are no disclosures of personal information to exterior third parties.

California: the class actions

Two class actions ran on parallel tracks. A California-resident class sued in Santa Clara County Superior Court in 2011; the federal court's order records that the state court overruled the demurrer, denied summary judgment, and certified that class. Coverage by The National Trial Lawyers reports the state case produced a $16.5 million award: $1.5 million compensatory and $15 million punitive, plus an injunction, and that the coverage reports the court found the Terms of Service unconscionable and the conduct in violation of California's UCL and CLRA. We could not read the state court's own file, so we print those figures as reporting, not as the record.

The federal case, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. SuccessfulMatch.com, No. 5:13-cv-03376-LHK, was filed on July 19, 2013 by a Canadian resident and a Washington resident for everyone outside California. On April 16, 2014, Judge Lucy H. Koh dismissed without prejudice: the named plaintiffs had not pleaded that they actually read the statements or how they lost money, which the court called a pleading deficiency rather than implausibility; the motion to strike the nationwide class was denied. In plain terms: the court did not say the claims were false; it said these two plaintiffs had not yet pleaded their own reliance and loss, and gave them 21 days to fix it. the publicly posted federal record on govinfo.gov ends with procedural orders from July and September 2014, including one setting an August 26, 2014 mediation.

The 2015 settlement

Per the settlement coverage on Top Class Actions, SuccessfulMatch funded a $4.2 million settlement resolving the California class case (No. 1-11-CV-211205) and the non-California class case the Jane Does' claims continued as (No. 1-15-CV-276983), with the final approval hearing in Santa Clara County Superior Court set for October 9, 2015. The non-California class covered registrations from October 13, 2007 through February 20, 2015; the California class from October 13, 2007 through March 15, 2013. Under the deal, non-California members with valid claims received their membership fees back in full, and SuccessfulMatch denied any wrongdoing in settling.

A refund of membership fees is a real remedy, but keep its size in view: readers of the settlement page reported checks of around $95. Nobody was compensated for a profile that surfaced somewhere unexpected; the money tracked what people had paid, not what the exposure may have cost them.

What the current terms say

We read the platform's service agreement and privacy policy on September 18, 2026; both carry a "Last Updated" date of May 12, 2026, and the operator is now SuccessfulMatch.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation. The practice at the center of the lawsuits is no longer buried: the privacy policy now says plainly that your profile may appear on other platforms hosted by the Company, Affiliates, and/or Related Parties, and in certain cases you may be redirected to an affiliated platform to complete registration. It defines Affiliates as other dating sites that We may own or We may have control over and Related Parties as other dating sites that We may have a business relationship with but do not necessarily have an ownership interest in or do not necessarily have any control over, and states that We will adhere to applicable legal requirements and, where necessary, inform you about these features, giving you the choice to agree or decline.

Two more things worth knowing before you agree. The service agreement's consent language covers sharing user information with affiliated and non-affiliated entities for purposes including analytics and business collaboration. And it now carries a class action waiver with a dispute-resolution clause, which is exactly the kind of term the litigation above was fought without. None of this is hidden; all of it is binding once you tick the box.

If you sign up today

The honest summary: the 2013 finding was ruled well-founded and the regulator reported the network reformed; the California cases ended in a settlement with fees refunded and no admission of wrongdoing; and today's documents disclose the cross-platform sharing the old ones did not. What was a hidden practice is now a stated term you can read and decline. That is a genuine improvement, and it is also a decision that now sits with you rather than with a court.

Practically, that means three steps before paying: read the two documents linked in the sources below, especially the profile-sharing and dispute sections; use the privacy controls the platform's FAQ describes rather than assuming defaults; and keep the profile itself unsearchable, meaning no photo that appears anywhere tied to your name and a dedicated email address. Our review covers what the site is like to use, and the cost page covers what you would actually pay.

How we researched this

On September 18, 2026 we read, in full: PIPEDA Report of Findings #2013-003 on priv.gc.ca; the April 16, 2014 order and the two later procedural orders in No. 5:13-cv-03376-LHK on govinfo.gov; and the platform's current service agreement and privacy policy. We could not read the Santa Clara County court file itself, so the verdict figures and settlement mechanics are attributed to the named coverage above rather than stated as the record. If you have access to the state-court documents and they contradict anything here, use the corrections address on our about page.

This site is run by an employee of SuccessfulMatch.com, Inc., which owns PositiveSingles, and PositiveSingles pays a commission when a reader subscribes through the links on this page. That is exactly why this page quotes documents instead of characterizing them.