Married? It’s True.com you shouldn’t visit! |
Keeping with the online dating theme in the last entry for just a wee bit longer, I just followed over and checked out true.com for the first time. If you read the USA article you’d see that the Michigan law is being backed by relative online dating newcomber, true.com. I didn’t mention true.com in the last entry, but the site is worth mentioning in its own entry for the mere fact of the additional steps they appear to go to for preventing married people from interacting at the website. Check out that legal disclaimer in the screenshot above.
Never hearing about this website before, and somewhat curious about the use of the name for a dating site, I think true.com is an intriguing concept for a dating site, although I can think of some legitimate and non-cheating scenarios where married people might be dating (maybe a separated couple never got legally separated or divorced?).
Check out the possible fine (up to $250,000) for the lamers who get bagged (Title 18, Section 1343 of the U.S Code) lying about their marital status and jail time (up to five years). As a married man, I feel like I need a spanking just for surfing the front page of their website and writing this entry! Married? Don’t do it … don’t click over there! Bad, bad, bad!
Did this post make you go hmm?
(Hmm, no ratings yet)
Loading ...
I’m a little late, but I’ve got my own take on the situation. I got a response from a pro-true.com person.
Comment by Letter D — March 30, 2005 @ 11:41 am PST
[…] omplete bust after all. True.com I wrote about recently as being the dating site that will go for the throat if somebody married tries to sneak their way in. I don’t own or operate a dat […]
Pingback by Make You Go Hmm: » Top 10 personals / dating sites in March 2005 — April 7, 2005 @ 12:26 pm PST
An online dating site called True.com which tauts it’s self as the safer dating service and the owner Herb Vest is behind litigation to require all dating services to disclose if they conduct background checks should be investigated for date bait along with several other questionable business practices.
Vest is being sued in Dallas, Texas by his former fiancee. The details of the woman’s case is very disturbing. Vest who is fighting to require background checks is now fighting to keep the detail affidavit by this woman seal. Vest sited it would damage his business and personal life.
Some of the details includes Vest with prostitutes, Threesomes with lesbians. Several sexual harassment claims against Vest while at HD Vest, Inc. And, this is just the tip of the iceberg. True is now turning it’s business to the sex trade. askmen.com has a contest to pick the hottest True girl. True.com’s exploitation of women
http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/columns/2005editorials/april2005.html
In addition you may want to ask Vest about the following business practices.
Apparently, Dave Evans’ Corante blog has posters that claim they have seen documentation of fraud on the part of True. That is, ex-employees who claim that part of their job description was to pose as real people and keep people as members to motivate them to become paid subscribers.
I think that this issue becomes even more pertinent in light of similar allegations currently against Match.com and Yahoo Personals. It is no secret that some “customer service” people that used to work at True are no longer there — and having left under curious circumstances. Vest/ HDVE could be compelled to release names of such ex-employees so they can be questioned about these allegations of fraud. Vest, Buell, and Trish Bellows should also be questioned as to whether they have any knowledge of fake/bait profiles being used by True employees at the direction of Vest and/or any of the executive management to essentially deceive or defraud customers or potential customers.
Secrets True.com doesn’t want made public!
1. “Is the endorsement from Psychology Today an academic endorsement or a paid endorsement?”
2. “You state on your site that you have a team of experts behind your testing/psychology services… who are they exactly and how do I get in touch with them in order to ask them what they specifically do for True and examples of recent work.” “Or, perhaps you (True.com) is overstating their roles as a marketing gimmick.”
3. “It seems True has been busy altering the authorship of certain online articles in its online magazine from Dr. James Houran to “Psychology Department” — implying Houran is still a part of the psychology dept. and that True has an active psychology dept.” Why is it making these changes in authorship? Does the online magazine editor (Leah Gentry, formerly a journalist with the LA Times) endorse this practice?”
4. Why has True.com not revealed to its customers that they no longer have the benefit of Dr. James Houran? He was arguably a huge value ad to the business and the welfare of the customers, yet customers are not told he is no longer with the company. True pushes for legislation requiring disclosure and yet they curiously are not disclosing that certain features/ benefits of the site are no longer part of the price of membership.”
FYI: Dr. Jim Houran was fired in October and True is sueing him. True hasn’t disclosure that there are no experts on staff. Even the security expert is gone. The gimmicks True promotes it’s self with aren’t True!
Also, Vest and his wife has broken their own rule : NO MARRIED PEOPLE ALLOWED. Screen names undermoose and fite both go into chat rooms. So True.com no married people can contact members isn’t True either.
VEST OFTEN GOES TO THE CHAT ROOM TO FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON. MARK BROOKS IS ON THE PAYROLL FOR TRUE.COM. VEST USES MARKS BLOG TO PROMOTE HIS COMPANY AND USES A DIFFERENCT NAME.
Comment by NY5APPLE — February 22, 2006 @ 6:08 pm PST
[…] We’ve been sitting on this one really long comment for a couple days now. It was made on an older post about the matchmaking site true.com and the commenter goes into detail about the siteowner’s personal activities and makes various allegations about the site , none of which I’m that interested in trying to validate (although there are some pointers to follow the bread crumbs). My curiosity with the dating site and writing about it here was the emphasis on no married people being allowed, which the commenter refutes on a number of levels. At the end of the comment is the true.com site owner’s home phone number. […]
Pingback by Make You Go Hmm: » Comment moderation dilemma — February 24, 2006 @ 11:24 am PST
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff175078.htm
Another way to see what a rip off True.com is and what customers have to say.
Comment by NY5APPLE — February 28, 2006 @ 9:24 am PST
True.com is selecting various races for marketing. True is using the compatibility test and the other test to profile various race groups.
True.com is deceptive and is using it’s so cslled test to get your information and use it against you.
The test are all misleading and another lie just like the so called background checks.
True is ripping people off with their free 7 day trail too!
True sent out to every race group ads for that group. Hispanic,Muslim,Jewish,Black, and Chinese.
True.com is doing race profiling. If it is against the law for law enforcement it is against the law for True.com
People should contact the Federal Trade Commission to report True.com for deceptive business practices.
FYI: Don’t fall for the Winks tick either a tick by True to get you to paid to be a member and see who is contacting you. It is either a True employee or another deceptive tick that your location is matched to others in your area and True winks at members when a person signs up. This is happen a lot right now. You see a wink and contact that person and they have no idea who you are and tell you they didn’t wink either.
DO NOT TAKE ANY TEST OR GIVE YOUR CREDIT CARD TO THIS COMPANTY!!
Comment by NY5APPLE — March 13, 2006 @ 6:04 pm PST
Another deceptive business practices is that True.com claims the sue felonies and married people that use their website. True filed a lawsuit against a Dr. Wells for PR. The TRUTH is there has been hundreds caught, but True isn’t sueing them. True couldn’t afford to sue the hundreds that are currently on the site. True doesn’t kick them off either…their money is as good as everyone elses.
True claims to be wanting lawmakers to require websites disclose if background checks are done. This is deceptive. True is trying to get news coverage and build a brand that True.com is the safe company. The TRUTH is you are safer not using True.
Comment by NY5APPLE — March 13, 2006 @ 6:13 pm PST
More law suits flying at True. The financial problem is at critical mass
True didn’t start this company to make dating safer. Vest the owner is paranoia. He hired an investigator to follow his fiancee and get her private information. Because this guy is off his rocker he accused her of being in the Mafia, having sex with everyone but her dog, and a list of outrageous accusations. All the while Vest was cheating on her!
Comment by binks — April 9, 2006 @ 7:59 am PST