Alvinology previously reported that a woman who by the name of Ms. M recently accused Singaporean matchmaking service Lunch Actually of failing to deliver on their promise of a “good-looking” man for her when she paid for their discounted three-date package worth almost $3000.
Violet Lim, CEO of Lunch Actually, claimed that the accusations against the company were false, as they would never guarantee such a thing to their client, but would only match them with a person who is within the parameters of their preferences, which definitely do not include any “looks” criteria.
Read her statement on the incident below:
What did Ms. M claim were promised to her for the three-date package?
According to Ms. M, she claimed that an agent for Lunch Actually marketed a discounted dating package to her, which was usually $5,000. She paid only $ 2,939.40 for the services that included three dates that would be arranged based on her preferences, which allegedly included “looks.”
The agent who sold her the package allegedly said she had a good match in mind for her.
Then, Ms. M claimed that a different agent handles her dating services as opposed to the one who handled the sale of the package itself. This new agent then allegedly said that they would be able to provide Ms. M’s preference which included a standard for “looks.” The man involved was allegedly marketed as a COO and well-off, without children and suitable for Ms. M.
But when Ms. M went on the date, she found that the man did not meet her criteria for “looks” and that he was not as well-off as she wanted. The man was allegedly “too thin” and ten years older than her, a veritable “uncle.”
The man involved in this case was allegedly aware of every complaint Ms. M had against him.
Ms. M allegedly revealed details of the “uncle” she dated
According to the statement from Violet, she and her company would never make such promises referring to a match’s looks to their client. What’s more, the man they matched with her were within her preferred age group. The promises of the man being a COO and good-looking were allegedly not true.
The statement from Lim said that Ms. M was not eligible for a refund on her dating package, but that she had another date added to her package since she was so dissatisfied with the first one. The Terms of Service that Ms. M claimed to be inaccessible to her after the first date were allegedly taken down after a certain period of time for security reasons. She could ask them in an email for a copy, but Ms. M was allegedly refusing to communicate with them when they refused to give her a refund.
Lim was also very distressed that Ms. M involved her first date in the case, and even went so far as to post his name, details, and even his photo, which was a grave injustice to the man.
Ms. M has allegedly filed a complaint with CASE.
Header image from Shutterstock.