Penalty Amount
$650,000
The New Jersey Attorney General and Division of Consumer Affairs announced that Match Group, Inc. will pay $650,000 and change its business practices to settle allegations that it misrepresented or failed to disclose its criminal background screening policies and practices to New Jersey users, violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Internet Dating Safety Act. Under a Consent Order, Match must accurately represent its screening policies, notify existing New Jersey members of updated disclosures within 150 days, and post clear and conspicuous disclosures and safety notifications about the limitations of criminal background screenings.
MGI will pay $650,000 to the State. Under the Consent Order, MGI must comply with the CFA by accurately representing to New Jersey members the criminal background screening policies and practices of its affiliates. Within 150 days of the filing of the Order, MGI Affiliates that perform criminal background screenings must send an email or issue a pop-up notification to all existing New Jersey members informing them of updates to the screening disclosure. Those affiliates must clearly and conspicuously disclose, in bold letters and at least 12-point type: the means and methods used to conduct screenings; whether and how often screening information is updated; whether members identified as having convictions (including registrable sex offenders) may access the service; and what crimes disqualify a member. Affiliates must also include safety notifications on their sites regarding the limitations of criminal background screenings, including that screenings are not foolproof, criminals may circumvent search technology, not all records are public or up to date, only publicly available convictions are included, and foreign convictions are not covered.
In-house legal teams—particularly at dating, social networking, and marketplace platforms—should review user-facing terms of service, safety disclosures, and marketing materials for accuracy of any representations about criminal background screening, member verification, or safety measures, since misrepresenting or failing to disclose such policies triggered consumer fraud liability here. Vendor agreements with third-party background-check and screening providers should be checked for data accuracy warranties, commitments on how often screening data is updated, coverage limitations (e.g., public records only, foreign convictions excluded), and indemnification for inaccurate results. Companies operating multiple brands or affiliate platforms should ensure their intercompany and platform agreements require consistent, compliant disclosures across all properties, and should build user-notification obligations into their policies so that when screening practices change, existing members are notified within a defined timeframe (here, 150 days).
Entity
Match Group, Inc.
Industry
Social MediaOfficial Press Release
https://www.njoag.gov/ag-davenport-match-inc-to-pay-650000-and-change-public-disclosures-to-resolve-allegations-its-internet-dating-services-misrepresented-criminal-background-screening-policies/
2026 0901 Match Group Inc
http://www.njoag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-0901_Match-Group-Inc.pdf
New Jersey Attorney General Enforcement Page
https://www.njoag.gov/about/divisions-and-offices/division-of-consumer-affairs/
"Match Group, Inc."
"will pay $650,000"
"New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act"
"Internet Dating Safety Act"
"misrepresenting or failing to disclose its criminal background screening policies and practices to its New Jersey users"
"For Immediate Release: September 1, 2026"
A multistate coalition co-led by New Jersey won a federal court order rejecting the Trump Administration’s decision not to request funding for the CFPB. The order struck down that decision and directed the Administration to follow the law and fund the agency; no monetary penalty or privacy violation is described.
New Jersey’s Attorney General and Division of Consumer Affairs alerted the public that three synthetic kratom-related compounds became illegal to possess or sell in the state under a temporary federal scheduling order. The release describes a controlled-substance alert, not a privacy enforcement action, and identifies no company, privacy violation, or monetary penalty.
$2.3M
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings agreed to pay $2,287,455 to participating states and strengthen its security and vendor-management practices following an investigation into the 2019 breach at its debt-collection vendor, AMCA. The breach potentially exposed information of more than 27.5 million people nationwide, including sensitive information belonging to approximately 10.2 million LabCorp patients.
$694.0M
New Jersey's Attorney General and Division of Consumer Affairs, along with 41 Attorneys General, reached a $694 million settlement with subprime auto lender Credit Acceptance Corporation over allegations it originated unaffordable loans its own systems predicted borrowers could not repay, employed aggressive debt-collection tactics, and failed to prevent deceptive vehicle-service contract and GAP product 'packing' by dealers. The multistate settlement stepped in after the CFPB permanently dropped its 2023 enforcement action against CAC in 2025. CAC will provide $60 million in cash restitution, $634 million in debt relief, an additional $15 million to the states, and implement injunctive lending reforms including loan off ramps, pre-loan disclosures, add-on packing safeguards, and a seven-year vehicle price cap. Note: this is a consumer-protection lending enforcement action, not a privacy matter; violation categories are best-fit mappings from the available taxonomy.
$96.5M
New Jersey and a coalition of states and territories obtained preliminary approval for a plan to distribute funds from settlements with generic drug manufacturers accused of conspiring to raise drug prices. The settlements total approximately $96.5 million, and eligible consumers may submit claims for compensation.
On August 31, 2026, New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and the Division of Consumer Affairs joined the FTC and a bipartisan coalition of 21 other states in suing Amazon, alleging that for over seven years the company secretly rigged its advertising auctions—converting advertised 'second price' auctions into first-price auctions with hidden 'soft reserve price' surcharges—overcharging more than 500,000 small- and medium-sized businesses and extracting tens of billions of dollars. The complaint alleges Amazon actively concealed the surcharges, gave false and misleading answers to advertisers who asked directly about the auction format, and applied inflated upcharges on high-volume shopping days like Prime Day and Black Friday. The lawsuit was just filed; no penalties or remedies have been imposed yet.