Policy Update: The Dating App That Faked 270 Women
South Korea Fair Trade Commission fined a dating app operator for using fake women to influence men’s choices and spending.
A Korean tech company just got fined for using fake female profiles to lure men on its dating apps. This post breaks down the Fair Trade Commission’s decision against Techlabs, the company behind Amanda and NeorangNarang, and how it staged interactions using fictitious accounts.
🇰🇷📱Fake Dates, Real Fine: KRW 52 Million for Deception
The Fair Trade Commission of the Republic of Korea has imposed a fine of 52 million Korean won on Techlabs for misleading users on its dating apps. This decision followed an investigation revealing that the company systematically used fabricated female user accounts on platforms such as Amanda and NeorangNarang to attract and engage male users under false pretenses.
Between October 2021 and April 2022, Techlabs created over 270 fake female accounts using images of real women from another app it operated in Taiwan. These images were paired with fabricated profile details including age, height, location, and education.
The fake accounts were operated by company staff, not real users. These accounts were used to rate male users highly, post content on anonymous forums, and send artificial expressions of interest, all designed to increase male user participation and in-app spending.
The company made use of in-app currencies, referred to as Ribbons and Hearts, which users purchased to unlock features such as friend requests or profile views. This business model relied on emotional responses triggered by what appeared to be genuine female interest. In reality, these interactions were generated internally by the app operator, not by independent users.
The Commission determined that this conduct constituted a violation of Article 21(1)(1) of the Electronic Commerce Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits misleading or deceptive practices that induce transactions. The decision included both a fine and a corrective order requiring public disclosure on Techlabs’ platforms.
This case highlights a structural issue in digital dating platforms where companies can manipulate gender dynamics to drive revenue without transparency or accountability. The state has intervened not only on consumer protection grounds but also as a reminder that digital markets are not exempt from public oversight.
Data manipulation in emotionally sensitive markets will not be treated lightly. Whether the fine will act as a sufficient deterrent is uncertain. Techlabs has already sold its Amanda business.
The Imaginary Women of Amanda & NeorangNarang
Techlabs developed a network of fake female user accounts across its dating platforms Amanda and NeorangNarang. These accounts were not operated by independent individuals. Instead, they were company-generated and company-controlled.
The purpose was to simulate activity and provoke male engagement. One such fabricated profile used the nickname “DalKomDdalgiSse,” a name that translates roughly to “Sweet Strawberry.” It was not an isolated case. The Fair Trade Commission identified around 270 such accounts created through a deliberate and organised scheme.
The company took images of women from a separate dating application it operated for Taiwanese users. It then crafted fictional biographies, including age, body type, height, education, and location. These details were not submitted by the individuals in the photographs. They were created by Techlabs itself.
Staff members were tasked with managing these accounts, assigning each employee multiple fake profiles. These workers interacted with male users using the fabricated accounts, signalling interest and initiating in-app activities designed to encourage participation and spending.
In NeorangNarang, one internal instruction was to select as many men as possible during the initial matching phase. Staff were directed to use fake female profiles to press the "select all" option on up to 176 male profiles per account per day.
On Amanda, the fake profiles were used to distribute high ratings to male users, suggesting positive feedback and thereby influencing their sense of desirability. These accounts were also used to post and interact with content on anonymous community boards to simulate activity and encourage male users to engage.
This systematic campaign of manipulation was part of a controlled and deliberate strategy, executed internally and across different functions within the business. The legal issue is clear. The use of fictional profiles breached consumer protection rules by presenting false information designed to induce user decisions. The scale of this conduct is what distinguishes it from casual misuse of a platform. Techlabs leveraged data and visual assets without consent, weaponising appearance and identity for monetary gain.
This case raises further concerns. The government is under growing pressure to regulate domestic technology firms, particularly where they operate in sectors involving personal relationships or user vulnerability. Some lawmakers may see this as an opportunity to revisit data ethics and user rights in digital marketplaces. This is particularly relevant given South Korea's influential and highly active tech and app ecosystem.
When “User Care” Meant Manipulation
Techlabs labelled its internal operation “male user care.” The term gave the impression of support or service enhancement. The reality was different. The operation involved direct manipulation of user behaviour through fictional female accounts operated by company staff. These actions were not about care. They were about control.
In the Amanda app, this internal operation took place over two days in October 2021. Staff used fake female profiles to view the profiles of male users and assign them high scores. The scores were not based on real interest. They were part of a strategy to increase engagement and prompt responses.
The aim was to stimulate activity on the platform by generating the appearance of interest from other users. This affected male users' decisions about continuing to use the app, sending messages, or purchasing additional services.
Push notifications were triggered automatically when a user profile was viewed or when a high score was given. These system messages created the impression that a real person had taken notice. In reality, the actions were logged and managed by employees. This process was designed to simulate interest without revealing its artificial nature. It was not disclosed to users that their interactions were part of an internal marketing strategy.
A similar approach was used on the NeorangNarang app. Between 5 - 28 October 2021, company staff selected male users using fake female accounts during the first matching phase. Each staff member was assigned up to five accounts.
Each account was instructed to select up to 176 male profiles per day. There was no meaningful review of profiles. There was no intention to engage further. The act of selecting was a mechanical instruction. The goal was to keep male users active and spending.
These practices created a false sense of popularity and demand. The impact was financial and emotional. Users responded by continuing their app use and purchasing in-app currencies such as Hearts or Ribbons. The choices made by users were not based on real interest from other people. They were based on synthetic signals created by the platform operator.
The Fair Trade Commission found that these activities misled consumers and encouraged transactions through deceit. The label “user care” did not change the legal assessment of the act. It was a structured and deliberate use of false information to guide user decisions. The regulatory response was necessary to maintain standards in digital marketplaces and to protect users from institutional manipulation.
Consider subscribing to the Tech Law Standard. A paid subscription gets you:
✅ Exclusive updates and commentaries on tech law (AI regulation, data and privacy law, cybersecurity, digital assets governance, and internet law).
✅ Unrestricted access to our entire archive of articles with in-depth analysis of tech law developments across the globe.
✅ Read the latest legal reforms and upcoming regulations about tech law, and how they might impact you in ways you might not have imagined.
✅ Post comments on every publication and join the discussion.