Public-source monitor · first edition

Global Dating Safety Rules & Response Map 2026

What can a dating user report? Must the platform answer? Is there an appeal? This map separates binding rules, an industry code, official advice, and proposals across seven jurisdictions—then shows what twelve dating products tell users publicly.

Snapshot: 24 July 2026 7 jurisdictions 12 products 9 response controls Version 1.0.1

The short answer

A report button, a legal right, and a safety promise are not the same thing.

The EU gives users a formal notice-and-action outcome and appeal route for covered platform decisions. The UK places risk, complaints, and age-assurance duties on in-scope services. Australia has a dating-specific voluntary code alongside eSafety powers. The United States has active consumer enforcement and intimate-image law, while a dating-specific banned-account notification measure remains a bill. Other reviewed countries rely on broader intermediary, privacy, consumer, or digital-violence frameworks.

Use this map to find the right source and question. Do not use it as legal advice, a country safety ranking, proof that a product complies, or a verdict about a person.

Read the legal force first

Five labels prevent a common reporting error.

Binding rule

A law, statutory duty, or enforceable regulatory requirement in the reviewed source.

Industry code

A dating-specific industry code with its own oversight, but not the same legal force as legislation.

Official guidance

Advice or a reporting route from a government, regulator, or public authority.

Proposal

A bill, consultation, or implementation step that should not be described as current law.

Not located

No dating-specific requirement was located in the reviewed official source set. This is not proof that no relevant law exists.

What the 63 coded cells contain

Framework type, not a safety score

Each cell records the strongest status supported by the linked official source. Counts describe this source set only.

Binding 25
Code 4
Guidance 12
Proposed 2
Not located 20
Open the reusable SVG chart

Jurisdiction control matrix

Where a user right is clear—and where it is not.

Every label links to a note below and every note names its official source. “Not located” means this review did not find a dating-specific requirement in the selected sources; it is not a claim that no relevant law exists.

On a phone, swipe the table horizontally. Select a label to open the source note for that country and control.

Country notes and official routes

The detail behind each matrix cell.

Reviewed jurisdiction

United States

Open the official route

Federal consumer-protection enforcement and reporting guidance are active. A dating-specific notification bill remains a proposal, while the TAKE IT DOWN Act creates a separate intimate-image removal framework for covered platforms.

Practical starting route: ReportFraud.ftc.gov for fraud; the FTC TAKE IT DOWN route for covered intimate-image removal failures.
User reporting Guidance

The FTC provides a federal fraud-reporting route and dating-scam guidance; this is not a dating-platform complaint appeal.

Decision notice Proposed

S.841 proposes notices connected to certain banned members. Congress.gov still lists the bill as introduced.

Appeal Not located

No general dating-platform appeal right was located in the reviewed federal sources.

Banned-account notice Proposed

The Romance Scam Prevention Act proposal would address notices after certain fraud-related account removals; it is not current law.

Cross-service action Not located

No general cross-service dating-account action duty was located in the reviewed federal sources.

Intimate-image response Binding

The TAKE IT DOWN Act establishes a notice-and-removal framework for covered non-consensual intimate depictions, including certain synthetic content.

Transparency Not located

No dating-specific federal transparency-report duty was located in the reviewed source set.

Preventive guidance Guidance

The FTC publishes dating and romance-scam warnings, complaint data, and reporting guidance.

Age or identity controls Not located

No nationwide dating-specific age or identity-verification rule was located in this federal source set.

Reviewed jurisdiction

United Kingdom

Open the official route

The Online Safety Act places illegal-content risk, reporting, complaints, record-keeping, and age-assurance duties on in-scope services. Ofcom publishes dating-specific guidance on how those duties apply.

Practical starting route: Use the service complaint route first; Ofcom explains duties but does not resolve every individual content complaint.
User reporting Binding

In-scope services need a complaints tool for illegal or harmful material and a process for dealing with complaints.

Decision notice Binding

Complaints duties require clear processes and responses in defined circumstances; the exact duty depends on service and complaint type.

Appeal Binding

The Act's complaints framework covers challenges to certain content and account decisions for in-scope services.

Banned-account notice Not located

No dating-specific duty to warn a removed account's past matches was located in the reviewed Ofcom material.

Cross-service action Not located

No general duty to remove a person across separate dating products was located in the reviewed source set.

Intimate-image response Binding

Illegal-content duties cover relevant intimate-image abuse and sextortion risks on in-scope services.

Transparency Binding

In-scope services have record-keeping, terms, risk-assessment, and transparency duties that vary by service category.

Preventive guidance Guidance

Ofcom publishes a dating-specific risk and compliance guide for services.

Age or identity controls Binding

Dating services that permit pornographic content must use highly effective age assurance to prevent under-18 access.

Reviewed jurisdiction

European Union / EEA

Open the official route

The Digital Services Act creates a notice-and-action route, outcome notices, internal complaints, independent dispute settlement, and transparency duties for covered online platforms. It is not a dating-specific safety code.

Practical starting route: Use the platform's DSA notice-and-action route; unresolved systemic problems can be raised with the national Digital Services Coordinator.
User reporting Binding

Online platforms must provide a simple notice-and-action mechanism for potentially illegal content.

Decision notice Binding

A notifier must receive confirmation and the platform's final outcome.

Appeal Binding

Users can use an internal complaint process or a certified out-of-court dispute body for covered decisions.

Banned-account notice Not located

No dating-specific rule to notify a removed account's former matches was located in the reviewed DSA material.

Cross-service action Not located

The reviewed DSA source does not create a general cross-product dating-account ban.

Intimate-image response Binding

The notice-and-action process applies to potentially illegal content, including content illegal under applicable intimate-image laws.

Transparency Binding

The DSA creates transparency obligations around moderation decisions, reports, advertising, and recommender systems.

Preventive guidance Guidance

The Commission explains how to report scams and distinguish the DSA route from ordinary terms-of-service reporting.

Age or identity controls Guidance

The DSA includes child-protection and design duties, but this review did not code a dating-specific identity-verification requirement.

Reviewed jurisdiction

Australia

Open the official route

Australia combines eSafety reporting powers and preventive guidance with a dating-specific voluntary industry code. The code has independent industry oversight, but eSafety states that it does not enforce the code.

Practical starting route: Report to the dating service first; eSafety accepts eligible adult cyber-abuse, image-based abuse, and illegal-content reports.
User reporting Code

Code participants must maintain reporting systems; separate eSafety routes cover eligible serious online harms.

Decision notice Code

The code sets complaint and accountability expectations, but it is not equivalent to a statutory outcome-notice right.

Appeal Code

Potential code breaches can be raised with the independent Code Compliance Committee.

Banned-account notice Not located

No universal past-match notification duty was coded from the reviewed public code summary.

Cross-service action Not located

No universal cross-product removal duty was coded from the reviewed public code summary.

Intimate-image response Binding

eSafety provides a statutory reporting route for image-based abuse and other eligible online harms.

Transparency Code

Code participants publish self-assessed compliance ratings and are accountable to an industry-formed committee.

Preventive guidance Guidance

eSafety publishes detailed advice for choosing a service, chatting, meeting, reporting, and getting support.

Age or identity controls Binding

Separate online-safety standards and child-protection duties apply; the voluntary dating code also addresses platform safeguards.

Reviewed jurisdiction

Canada

Open the official route

Canada's current reviewed sources are mainly consumer-protection and privacy frameworks rather than a dating-specific online-safety regime. The proposed Online Harms Act is kept separate from rules already in force.

Practical starting route: Use the platform route; fraud can be reported to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre and privacy complaints to the relevant privacy authority.
User reporting Guidance

Official consumer guidance points users toward complaint and fraud-reporting routes; no dating-specific platform mechanism is mandated in this source.

Decision notice Not located

No general dating-platform moderation outcome-notice right was located in the reviewed current sources.

Appeal Not located

Privacy complaints have regulator routes, but that is not a general appeal from dating-app moderation.

Banned-account notice Not located

No dating-specific past-match warning duty was located in the reviewed source set.

Cross-service action Not located

No general cross-service dating-account action duty was located.

Intimate-image response Guidance

Criminal and provincial routes may apply, but the reviewed federal online-harms proposal is not coded as current law.

Transparency Binding

PIPEDA privacy accountability and meaningful-consent duties can apply to dating services; this is not a public safety-report requirement.

Preventive guidance Guidance

The Competition Bureau publishes dating-subscription, identity, and consumer-protection advice.

Age or identity controls Not located

No nationwide dating-specific verification rule was located in the reviewed source set.

Reviewed jurisdiction

India

Open the official route

India's intermediary, grievance, cybercrime-reporting, and data-protection rules can apply to dating services, but the reviewed national sources do not form a dating-specific safety code.

Practical starting route: Use the platform grievance contact; cyber-enabled crime can be reported through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.
User reporting Binding

Intermediaries must publish grievance contacts and processes; the national cybercrime portal is a separate government reporting route.

Decision notice Binding

The grievance framework sets acknowledgement and resolution duties, subject to service classification and complaint type.

Appeal Binding

The IT Rules provide a Grievance Appellate Committee route for covered intermediary grievances.

Banned-account notice Not located

No dating-specific duty to warn a removed account's past contacts was located.

Cross-service action Not located

No general cross-product dating-account removal duty was located.

Intimate-image response Binding

The intermediary grievance framework includes accelerated handling for certain intimate or impersonation content; criminal reports use the cybercrime portal.

Transparency Binding

Covered intermediaries and data fiduciaries have notice, grievance, and reporting duties that vary by classification.

Preventive guidance Guidance

Government cybercrime resources provide reporting and prevention information, though not a complete dating-specific guide.

Age or identity controls Binding

The DPDP framework includes rules for children's personal data; it does not make a dating badge proof of identity or safety.

Reviewed jurisdiction

Brazil

Open the official route

Brazil's 2026 platform framework gives the ANPD systemic oversight of provider reporting channels, risk prevention, transparency, digital fraud, and digital violence. Implementation is still being phased in.

Practical starting route: Use the platform reporting channel; the ANPD is updating channels for systemic platform-duty and digital-violence complaints.
User reporting Binding

The 2026 framework addresses provider reporting channels and handling systems; ANPD oversight is systemic rather than a substitute for every content complaint.

Decision notice Binding

Provider duties include complaint handling and user rights, while detailed implementation is still developing.

Appeal Not located

No dating-specific moderation appeal was coded from the reviewed implementation page.

Banned-account notice Not located

No dating-specific duty to notify past contacts of a banned account was located.

Cross-service action Not located

No general cross-service dating-account removal rule was located.

Intimate-image response Binding

The 2026 framework specifically addresses digital violence and intimate content, including manipulated intimate content.

Transparency Binding

ANPD oversight covers governance, transparency, risk prevention, reporting channels, and systemic provider duties.

Preventive guidance Guidance

Official implementation material explains provider duties and digital-violence protections; it is not a dating-specific user guide.

Age or identity controls Guidance

Child and adolescent online protections exist in related frameworks; no dating-specific identity check was coded here.

Official product sources under review

What these public pages cover—and what they leave unclear.

This table records whether a captured public source directly addresses a topic. It does not test the product, measure incidents, verify enforcement, or rank one app as safer than another. A topic marked “not coded” may be addressed elsewhere.

Source list, not partner list.

RealAttraction.today received no payment, affiliate commission, or other consideration for inclusion. No dating product reviewed this analysis before publication or influenced the coding. Inclusion is not an endorsement, and omission is not a criticism.

Product links go to the specific public safety or help page reviewed so readers can check the coding. They are citations, not sign-up or recommendation links. The report does not use product logos, prices, or download calls to action.

Why these twelve sources were selected

The set combines mainstream products with representative services serving distinct dating contexts, including LGBTQ+, faith and marriage, non-traditional relationships, and explicit relationship expectations. A product needed an accessible public safety or help page that could be coded under the same topic definitions. This is a selected source set, not a complete market census.

Topics explicitly addressed in the captured official public guidance
Product and source Report or supportMoving off-appMoney or investmentPrivacy and personal dataFirst meetingVerification or identity checksIntimate images or consentLocation or device exposureCommunity or relationship context
Tinder Mainstream dating Official source reviewed Mentioned Mentioned Not coded from this source Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Not coded from this source
Bumble Mainstream dating and social connection Official source reviewed Mentioned Not coded from this source Not coded from this source Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Not coded from this source Not coded from this source
Hinge Relationship-focused dating Official source reviewed Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Not coded from this source Not coded from this source
Match Relationship-focused dating Official source reviewed Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Not coded from this source Not coded from this source Not coded from this source
Coffee Meets Bagel Relationship-focused dating Official source reviewed Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Not coded from this source Not coded from this source Not coded from this source Not coded from this source
Grindr LGBTQ+ dating and connection Official source reviewed Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned
Muzz Muslim dating and marriage Official source reviewed Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Not coded from this source Not coded from this source Not coded from this source Mentioned
Shaadi.com South Asian matrimony Official source reviewed Mentioned Not coded from this source Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Not coded from this source Not coded from this source Mentioned
Feeld Open-minded and non-traditional relationships Official source reviewed Mentioned Not coded from this source Mentioned Mentioned Not coded from this source Mentioned Mentioned Not coded from this source Mentioned
Salams Muslim dating and marriage Official source reviewed Mentioned Not coded from this source Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Not coded from this source Not coded from this source Mentioned
Seeking Dating with explicit relationship expectations Official source reviewed Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Not coded from this source Mentioned
eharmony Relationship-focused dating Official source reviewed Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Not coded from this source Mentioned Not coded from this source Mentioned

Official source → public guide → private Check

How the research changes a decision before it becomes hard to undo.

The Check does not ask a user to diagnose a crime or upload evidence. It translates recurring public guidance into questions a person can answer privately on their own device.

01

Someone asks you to leave the app quickly

Official layer
Regulators and consumer agencies repeatedly treat loss of platform controls and evidence as a practical risk.
Product layer
Several reviewed platform guides advise slowing down before moving to text, WhatsApp, Telegram, email, or another service.
Check layer
The Check asks whether the move is urgent, secret, or tied to pressure—not whether one app is always safe.
02

Someone asks for money, crypto, gift cards, or an investment

Official layer
Official fraud guidance gives this a separate reporting and recovery context.
Product layer
Money requests appear across mainstream, relationship-focused, community-specific, and matrimony guidance.
Check layer
The Check separates the request, urgency, payment method, and ability to pause before anything is sent.
03

Someone asks for a private image or identity detail

Official layer
Several jurisdictions provide distinct routes for intimate-image abuse, impersonation, privacy, or cybercrime.
Product layer
Consent, privacy, device exposure, and reporting are unevenly covered across products.
Check layer
The Check never asks for the image or document. It asks what was requested and points to the relevant response route.
04

A first meeting is being arranged

Official layer
Preventive guidance stresses an independent venue, transport, communication plan, and exit route.
Product layer
First-meeting planning is one of the most repeated public guidance topics.
Check layer
The Check focuses on venue, cost, transport, pressure, privacy, and whether the plan can be changed without conflict.
05

A profile has a badge, ID check, or video call

Official layer
Age, identity, privacy, and child-protection duties differ by jurisdiction and do not create one universal proof standard.
Product layer
Products describe different checks; the public pages do not support treating every badge as proof of honesty or future behaviour.
Check layer
The Check treats verification as one narrow signal and asks what the situation still requires you to decide.
Start the private Check

Method and limits

A reproducible public-source monitor, not a legal opinion.

  1. Jurisdiction selection. The first edition covers large English-language dating markets plus the EU/EEA and Brazil, where platform rules and enforcement structures add materially different models.
  2. Official sources first. A legal or regulatory cell is coded only from a government, regulator, legislature, or formally published code source.
  3. AI-assisted source processing. AI tools helped organise source material, compare repeated fields, and prepare draft summaries. Published entries remain tied to the linked public source. AI output is not treated as evidence, a legal interpretation, or an independent source. This map has not been reviewed by a lawyer.
  4. Strongest supported status. Each cell uses the strongest status supported by the linked source: binding rule, industry code, official guidance, proposal, or not located.
  5. No silent inference. A general online-platform duty is not rewritten as a dating-specific promise. A bill is never presented as law. A voluntary code is not presented as government enforcement.
  6. Product-source selection. The set combines mainstream products with representative services serving distinct dating contexts, including LGBTQ+, faith and marriage, non-traditional relationships, and explicit relationship expectations. A product needed an accessible public safety or help page that could be coded under the same topic definitions. This is a selected source set, not a complete market census.
  7. Editorial independence. RealAttraction.today received no payment, affiliate commission, or other consideration for inclusion. No dating product reviewed this analysis before publication or influenced the coding. Inclusion is not an endorsement, and omission is not a criticism. Product links go to the specific public safety or help page reviewed so readers can check the coding. They are citations, not sign-up or recommendation links. The report does not use product logos, prices, or download calls to action.
  8. Product pages are a separate layer. The twelve-product table records topics in captured official guidance, not product performance, enforcement quality, or incident rates.
  9. Snapshot, not permanence. Public pages, legislation, and implementation guidance change. Every source has a last-checked date and material changes enter the log below.
  10. Corrections. Send a changed source, factual correction, or scope question to hello@realattraction.today. We publish the source and correction date with material revisions.

Reuse: The original coding, tables, chart, and explanatory text are available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. Third-party source text, names, and marks remain subject to their own terms.

Boundary: This report does not identify users, investigate allegations, collect evidence, rank products by safety, or tell a reader whether a legal duty applies to a specific case.

For journalists and researchers

Cite the edition and the underlying source.

Recommended citation

RealAttraction Research. Global Dating Safety Rules & Response Map 2026. First edition, public-source snapshot 24 July 2026. https://realattraction.today/insights/global-dating-safety-rules-response-map/

Change log

What changed and when.

Version 1.0.12026-07-24
  • Published the product-source selection method and limits.
  • Added a no-payment, no-affiliate, no-pre-publication-review, and no-coding-influence disclosure.
  • Relabelled product links as official sources reviewed rather than recommendation links.
  • Clarified that inclusion and omission are not safety judgments.
Version 1.0.02026-07-24
  • Published the first seven-jurisdiction control map.
  • Added a twelve-product public-guidance comparison.
  • Separated binding rules, industry codes, official guidance, proposals, and items not located.
  • Added machine-readable JSON and CSV distributions, an SVG chart, a PDF edition, and citation wording.
  • Published an AI-use disclosure covering source organisation, drafting, evidence limits, and legal-review limits.
Download the machine-readable change log