MyLife
MyLife.com, Inc. is an American online service provider specializing in reputation management and background reports, operating through the website mylife.com to aggregate public records, social media activity, and user reviews into proprietary reputation profiles and scores for individuals.[1][2] Founded in 2002 by Jeffrey Tinsley as Reunion.com, the company underwent a merger with Wink.com in 2008 and relaunched under the MyLife name in 2009, shifting focus toward helping users monitor and enhance their online presence for personal and professional purposes.[3][4] MyLife's platform claims to foster trust by enabling background checks on contacts such as dates, neighbors, and business associates, while offering tools for profile editing and review management, though its reputation scoring has been empirically linked to factors like court records and public complaints rather than comprehensive predictive validity.[1][5] The company has achieved prominence as a data aggregation tool but faced defining controversies, including a 2020 lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice alleging deceptive teaser reports, misleading subscription billing via negative options, and inaccurate background information that pressured consumers into payments for remediation.[6][7] This culminated in a 2021 settlement imposing a $21 million consumer redress payment and a permanent ban on such marketing practices, alongside prior class-action suits over fraud and privacy concerns, highlighting causal issues in its business model reliant on public data exploitation without robust verification mechanisms.[6][7]Founding and Early Development
Origins as Reunion.com (2002–2007)
Reunion.com was founded in 2002 by Jeffrey Tinsley in Santa Monica, California, as a people search service designed to facilitate reconnections among old friends, relatives, and acquaintances. Tinsley, inspired by meeting his future wife at his own 10-year high school reunion, developed the platform to aggregate and provide access to publicly available personal information, including addresses, phone numbers, emails, and basic background details.[8][9][10] From its launch, Reunion.com positioned itself as a social networking tool focused on "meta-search" for individuals, drawing data from diverse public sources to generate profiles without requiring user-submitted content. The service emphasized ease of use for locating long-lost contacts, differentiating from contemporaneous platforms like Classmates.com by prioritizing comprehensive search capabilities over alumni-specific networks. Early operations relied on free basic searches to build user engagement, with premium features for deeper access to aggregated data.[10][11] By 2007, Reunion.com had achieved significant scale, reporting approximately 8 million unique monthly visitors and facilitating around 60 million people searches per month. This traction attracted substantial venture capital, culminating in a $25 million Series A funding round led by investors including J.P. Morgan Partners and Hummer Winblad Venture Partners—the largest initial investment for any Los Angeles-based internet company to date. The funding supported infrastructure expansion and feature enhancements, solidifying Reunion.com's role in the burgeoning online people search sector prior to its later merger activities.[12][13]Merger with Wink.com and Rebranding (2008)
In November 2008, Reunion.com merged with Wink.com, a people search engine founded in 2005 that had shifted focus to aggregating profiles from social networks like MySpace, Facebook, and LinkedIn.[14] The merger announcement on November 3 built on a prior multi-year, multi-million-dollar partnership between the companies established in 2007.[14] Reunion.com, which operated as a hybrid people-search and social networking site with 50 million registered members and had raised $25 million in funding the previous year, acquired Wink to enhance its data aggregation capabilities.[14][15] The combined entity integrated Reunion.com's user base and premium features—such as paid access to contact details and messaging tools—with Wink's database of approximately 700 million profiles derived from web crawling and public sources.[14][15] This merger aimed to create a more robust platform for locating individuals across life stages, incorporating both personal and professional data from social media sites including Twitter alongside public records.[15] As part of the merger, the company planned a rebranding and full site relaunch in early 2009—initially targeted for February—to operate under the new name MyLife.com, emphasizing a unified service model with free basic searches and premium subscriptions for advanced features.[14][15] The rebranding positioned MyLife.com to compete with professional networking sites like LinkedIn by offering comprehensive people discovery beyond professional contexts.[15]Initial Funding and Expansion
In 2007, prior to its merger with Wink.com, Reunion.com secured $25 million in venture capital funding from Oak Investment Partners, which supported operational scaling and product development in the people-search sector.[16] This investment came amid growing demand for online reunion and background information services, enabling the company to expand its database and user acquisition efforts. Following the November 2008 merger with Wink.com and subsequent rebranding to MyLife.com, the company experienced rapid expansion driven by integrated data aggregation from both entities. By early 2009, MyLife reported 2008 revenues approaching $52 million, reflecting a 92% year-over-year growth from Reunion.com's prior performance, attributed to enhanced search capabilities and marketing initiatives.[4] User base growth accelerated post-rebranding, with membership surpassing 30 million by mid-2010 and reaching nearly 38 million U.S. members by late 2010, fueled by freemium access to reputation scores and background reports.[17][18] This period marked MyLife's transition to a larger-scale operation, though no additional public venture funding rounds were disclosed immediately after the merger, suggesting reliance on internal cash flows for further development.Services and Operations
Core Offerings: Background Checks and Reputation Scores
MyLife provides background reports that aggregate publicly available data on individuals, including criminal and civil court records, lawsuits, liens, judgments, income estimates, property records, social media activity, work and education history, photos, and contact details such as addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses.[1][19] These reports are positioned as comprehensive reputation insights rather than formal employment screening tools, with full access typically requiring a paid subscription after viewing limited "teaser" previews.[20] The service draws from sources like county and state records, though it does not conduct original investigations.[21] Complementing the reports, MyLife assigns a proprietary reputation score to profiles on a scale of 1 to 5, intended to quantify an individual's perceived trustworthiness based on aggregated factors including public criminal records, court judgments, personal reviews submitted by users, and online data from social media and other public domains.[22][23] Scores are updated continuously using algorithmic methods, with higher values (e.g., 3.5 to 5) signaling positive reputation and lower ones indicating potential risks like legal issues or negative feedback.[24] Users can purportedly improve scores through a dashboard by disputing inaccuracies, adding positive reviews, or monitoring changes, though such features are gated behind subscriptions.[1] These offerings have drawn regulatory scrutiny for accuracy and presentation. In July 2020, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice filed a lawsuit alleging MyLife violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by disseminating inaccurate reports and using deceptive teasers that falsely implied serious criminal or sex offender records—often based on minor infractions like traffic tickets—to drive subscriptions.[20][25] The case highlighted failures to verify data reasonableness and ensure permissible uses, potentially affecting consumers' opportunities in employment, housing, or loans, though MyLife maintained the previews were probabilistic indicators rather than definitive claims.[26] Independent analyses have questioned the scores' reliability, noting reliance on unverified user reviews and public data prone to errors or outdated information.[19]Data Aggregation and Sources
MyLife.com aggregates personal data from public records, third-party databases, and user-submitted information to construct individual profiles and compute reputation scores. The platform explicitly states in its privacy policy that it acquires personal information from sources including public databases, marketing and consumer data providers, and other third parties, in addition to reviews provided by users about individuals. This aggregation process involves compiling disparate data points—such as names, addresses, relatives, and historical records—into unified profiles without direct user consent for inclusion.[27] Primary data sources encompass government-maintained public records, including county and state-level court filings, property deeds, voter registration databases, and criminal history logs, which are legally accessible but often outdated or incomplete when aggregated. MyLife also draws from online footprints, such as social media profiles and publicly shared content across thousands of websites, supplemented by proprietary algorithms that infer connections between records. While the company maintains that all core data derives from verifiable public domains, integrations with credit bureaus and commercial data brokers have been reported in user inquiries, though not officially confirmed as systematic inputs.[27][21][28] The aggregation methodology relies on automated scraping and matching techniques to link identities across sources, potentially leading to errors like misattributed records or conflated profiles for individuals with common names. MyLife's scale involves processing millions of records daily, with reputation scores derived from weighted factors including serious legal events (e.g., arrests or lawsuits) pulled from judicial databases, alongside less verifiable elements like online reviews. Critics, including privacy advocates, note that while sources are public, the proprietary scoring lacks transparency on weighting or verification protocols, raising questions about accuracy despite claims of empirical basis.[27][29][30]User Features and Tools
MyLife.com enables users to perform searches for individuals, accessing aggregated public profiles that include contact information, background details such as court records and property ownership, work history, and a reputation score calculated from public records, social media, reviews, and other data sources.[1] These profiles provide a snapshot of an individual's online presence, with the reputation score rated on a scale reflecting perceived trustworthiness, updated in real-time based on available information.[1] Free users can view basic reputation profiles and teaser elements of background reports, but full access to comprehensive reports and advanced monitoring requires a paid subscription.[1][20] Subscribers gain entry to a Reputation Dashboard for editing profile facts, disputing inaccuracies, managing user-submitted reviews, and tracking changes to their score or who has searched their profile.[1][31] Profile management tools allow claimed users to request removals or suppress specific information after identity verification, though such actions are limited and often tied to premium tiers.[31] Communication features include limited email outreach to profile contacts, subject to usage caps, facilitating networking or verification.[31] Search tools support importing contact lists for bulk queries and reverse lookups, such as identifying callers via phone numbers integrated with profile data.[1] Mobile applications for iOS and Android extend these capabilities, offering on-the-go access to searches, profile views, and dashboard management.[31] While marketed for reputation enhancement, the platform's tools have drawn scrutiny for potentially misleading free previews that pressure upgrades, as noted in regulatory actions.[20]Business Practices
Subscription and Monetization Model
MyLife.com employs a freemium subscription model, offering users a free basic reputation score and teaser previews of public records data to attract engagement, while requiring paid memberships for comprehensive background reports, ongoing monitoring, and profile correction tools. This approach leverages aggregated public data sources to generate personalized profiles, enticing consumers with partial disclosures that prompt upgrades to premium access for full details on criminal records, court filings, and personal reviews.[20][22] Paid tiers typically include monthly subscriptions starting at approximately $9.95, with discounted longer-term options such as 6-month plans billed at $8.95 per month ($53.70 upfront) and 12-month plans at $5.95 per month ($71.90 upfront). These plans provide unlimited report views, alerts for profile changes, and assistance in disputing inaccuracies, often promoted via low-cost trial periods that auto-renew unless manually canceled.[32][33][34] The model's revenue relies heavily on recurring subscription fees, supplemented by one-time charges for expedited services, rather than advertising or data sales to third parties. Critics, including federal regulators, have highlighted how teaser reports exaggerate risks to drive conversions, leading to enforcement actions that scrutinized the transparency of billing practices.[20][25]Marketing and Consumer Engagement Tactics
MyLife utilized teaser previews of background reports as a core marketing tactic, posting incomplete and misleading summaries online since at least 2009 to alarm potential subscribers. These previews often featured banners or flags implying serious issues, such as "may have criminal records" or equating minor infractions like traffic citations with arrests, even absent substantiating evidence, thereby prompting users to purchase full reports for clarification or correction.[20] Promotional elements included clickable buttons for "free" name searches labeled "View [person’s] Court, Arrest, or Criminal Records," fostering the false impression that adverse records existed and driving conversions to paid subscriptions.[20] To facilitate subscriptions, MyLife employed negative option marketing practices, including deceptive sales representations during calls and obscured auto-renewal terms that charged consumers upfront for multiple months without clear disclosure. Cancellation processes were designed to be cumbersome, with policies misrepresented to discourage refunds, violating standards under the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act and Telemarketing Sales Rule.[7] These tactics aimed to lock in recurring revenue while minimizing churn, though they drew federal scrutiny for impeding consumer autonomy.[6] Consumer engagement post-acquisition relied on profile management tools, where subscribers could claim listings and submit updates to purportedly elevate reputation scores, though accuracy of underlying data aggregation remained contentious. The company also leveraged data partnerships, such as with AtData's ECOA service, to optimize acquisition costs through targeted outreach, reducing reliance on broad advertising spend.[35] Federal settlements in 2021 prohibited future use of such negative option features and mandated compliance with accuracy and disclosure requirements for 20 years, alongside $21 million in redress to affected consumers.[7]Operational Scale and Revenue Growth
MyLife maintained a significant operational footprint in the people search and background check industry, aggregating public records and other data sources to generate profiles for hundreds of millions of individuals. The platform reported over 42 million registered members and attracted more than 21 million unique monthly users, reflecting broad accessibility and engagement in reputation monitoring and search services.[2] By 2010, the company had expanded its registered user base to 41 million, primarily targeting U.S. adults aged 35 and older, which underscored its growth in consumer adoption following early funding and mergers.[18] Operationally, MyLife employed around 130 to 147 staff members in roles spanning data aggregation, software development, and customer support, headquartered in Los Angeles with a focus on scalable online infrastructure.[36] [37] Revenue growth for MyLife accelerated in its early years post-rebranding, supported by $27.2 million in total funding across multiple venture rounds, including a $25 million Series A in 2007 from investors like Oak Investment Partners.[36] Estimates place annual revenues at approximately $35.8 million to $45 million in later periods, derived largely from subscription models offering premium access to detailed reports and reputation management tools.[37] [38] This expansion from startup origins to mid-sized revenue streams aligned with increased demand for personal data verification services, though precise year-over-year figures remain undisclosed due to the company's private status.[39] The model's reliance on paid memberships—accounting for up to 90% of income in peak years—facilitated scaling, enabling investments in data partnerships and platform enhancements amid rising online privacy concerns.[38]Legal and Regulatory Challenges
2011 Class Action Lawsuit and Washington State Scrutiny
In February 2011, plaintiffs John Clerkin and Veronica Mendez filed a class action lawsuit against MyLife.com, Inc., its CEO Jeffrey Tinsley, and related entities in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:11-cv-00527), alleging deceptive marketing practices including false claims that individuals were searching for consumers or that urgent reputation management was needed, teaser reports requiring paid subscriptions to access full details, unauthorized recurring charges after trials (such as Clerkin's $29.95 monthly fee after a purported free trial and Mendez's $60 charge following a $5 trial), spam emails, and inaccurate background information used to induce payments.[40][41][42] The complaint portrayed MyLife's model as a continuation of tactics from the prior Classmates.com operation, which had settled a similar suit for $9.5 million, accusing MyLife of violating California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act through misrepresentations that no reasonable consumer would expect, such as fabricated search notifications and inflated reputation scores.[43] On August 19, 2011, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken denied defendants' joint motion to dismiss most claims, ruling that the allegations plausibly stated causes of action for fraud and deception, though dismissing certain individual defendants like investor Oak Investment Partners for lack of involvement; the court found the class action device appropriate pending certification, allowing claims for restitution, injunctive relief, and damages to advance based on evidence of systematic bait-and-switch tactics affecting potentially millions.[44][45] The suit highlighted MyLife's claimed 62 million members by January 2011 as evidence of scale, with plaintiffs seeking to represent all U.S. consumers charged via similar inducements since MyLife's rebranding.[40][43] Concurrently in 2011, the Washington State Attorney General's Office launched an investigation into MyLife.com's television advertisements, which promoted "free" people-search and reputation services but required paid subscriptions, potentially violating the state's Consumer Protection Act by omitting material costs and creating misleading impressions of no-fee access; the probe focused on commercials that had already ceased airing but were deemed deceptive in implying gratis utility.[46][47] In October 2012, MyLife resolved the matter through an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance, committing to upfront cost disclosures in all ads, clear subscription terms, refund policies for unintended charges, and cessation of unsubstantiated claims, without admitting wrongdoing but agreeing to $50,000 in costs to the state for enforcement.[46][47] This scrutiny underscored broader regulatory concerns over MyLife's aggressive marketing amid the class action's parallel allegations of consumer deception.[48]2015 California Litigation
In 2015, MyLife.com, Inc. settled a lawsuit brought by the City of Santa Monica City Attorney's Office and Los Angeles County alleging violations of California's Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), which requires clear disclosure and affirmative consent for automatic subscription renewals.[49][50] The action, initiated as the first major prosecution of an online business under the ARL, focused on MyLife's subscription practices for background reports and reputation monitoring services.[49] The complaint accused MyLife of deceptive tactics, including misleading promotions via the "Who’s Searching for You" feature that implied free access but led to charges, unauthorized automatic credit card debits without prior notice or explicit consent, and concealing that low advertised monthly rates actually committed consumers to full-year memberships upfront.[49] These practices allegedly resulted in consumers facing difficulties canceling subscriptions or obtaining refunds, with the company ignoring some cancellation requests.[49][50] MyLife agreed to the settlement without admitting wrongdoing, paying a total exceeding $1 million: $800,000 in civil penalties to the plaintiffs and $250,000 allocated for consumer restitution.[49][51] The agreement imposed a permanent injunction on MyLife and its CEO, Jeffrey Tinsley—personally bound by the terms—prohibiting false or misleading advertising, unauthorized charges, and failures to honor cancellations.[50][49] Under the injunction, MyLife was required to provide conspicuous disclosures for any automatic renewals longer than one month, obtain explicit consumer consent separate from other terms, and ensure promotional images accurately depict the services or individuals involved.[49] The settlement aimed to reform MyLife's enrollment and billing processes to prevent future ARL violations, though subsequent federal actions cited ongoing issues with similar practices.[50]2020 FTC and DOJ Enforcement Action
On July 27, 2020, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), acting on behalf of federal agencies including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), filed a civil complaint against MyLife.com, Inc. and its founder and CEO, Jeffrey Tinsley, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:20-cv-06692).[52] The complaint alleged that MyLife violated Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) through deceptive acts and practices in the marketing and sale of consumer background reports and subscriptions. Specifically, it charged MyLife with disseminating misleading "teaser" previews on its website that prominently displayed unsubstantiated or exaggerated negative claims—such as queries like "Arrested?", "Sued?", or "Sex Offender?"—to create false impressions of serious criminal or civil issues, thereby inducing consumers to purchase full reports or subscriptions that often contained little or no supporting evidence.[20] The enforcement action further accused MyLife of failing to adequately disclose the limitations of its reports, including that much of the information derived from public records, user-submitted data, or unverified sources rather than comprehensive investigations, and that reputation scores were algorithmically generated without transparent methodology.[52] MyLife's negative option subscription model was highlighted as deceptive, involving free trials that automatically converted to recurring monthly charges (typically $29.99) without clear, conspicuous disclosures of billing terms or easy cancellation procedures, leading to unauthorized charges for millions of consumers. The complaint sought permanent injunctive relief to halt these practices, as well as monetary redress for affected consumers estimated to number in the millions, based on MyLife's reported revenue exceeding $100 million from such sales between 2017 and 2020. This joint FTC-DOJ initiative underscored concerns over the accuracy and utility of online background report services, positioning MyLife's tactics as a form of bait-and-switch marketing that exploited consumer fears rather than providing verifiable intelligence.[52] The action did not allege violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), as MyLife's reports were marketed for personal or non-employment purposes, but emphasized broader consumer protection under FTC authority.[20]2021 Settlement and Injunctive Relief
In December 2021, the United States District Court for the Central District of California approved a stipulated order resolving the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) 2020 enforcement action against MyLife.com, Inc. and its CEO, Jeffrey Tinsley, for deceptive marketing practices and violations of consumer protection laws.[53] The order imposed equitable monetary judgments totaling $33.9 million—$28.9 million against MyLife and $5 million against Tinsley—though portions were suspended upon partial payments, resulting in approximately $21 million directed toward consumer redress.[6] Tinsley was required to pay $300,000 by December 15, 2021, with quarterly installments of $293,750 from March 31, 2022, through December 31, 2025, secured by specified real property; MyLife's payments included $2 million by January 15, 2022, followed by quarterly amounts totaling $16 million by late 2025.[53] Funds were to be disbursed via electronic transfer for refunds or forfeited to the U.S. Treasury if undistributed.[7] The injunctive relief permanently prohibited MyLife and Tinsley from using negative option features, such as undisclosed auto-renewing subscriptions, in marketing background reports or any products.[6] They were barred from misrepresenting the content, accuracy, or sources of "Covered Records" (including criminal, traffic, or public records), payment terms, or the nature of services offered.[53] Additional prohibitions included furnishing consumer reports without a permissible purpose under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), implying non-criminal infractions like traffic violations as criminal records, or violating the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act and Telemarketing Sales Rule.[6] MyLife was mandated to implement an FCRA compliance monitoring program, including annual third-party assessments, employee training, and customer data provision to the FTC covering 2016–2021 transactions.[53] Compliance obligations extended to maintaining records for 20 years, submitting annual reports and certifications to the FTC, and relinquishing certain assets for redress.[53] The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the order, with violations potentially triggering resumption of suspended judgments.[7] This settlement addressed allegations that MyLife deceived consumers with teaser reports prompting paid subscriptions, often without clear billing disclosures, affecting millions through unauthorized charges.[6]Subsequent Litigation and 2022 Bankruptcy Filing
Following the December 2021 settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ), which imposed a $21 million consumer redress obligation and a permanent ban on deceptive negative option marketing practices, MyLife.com faced mounting creditor claims and operational challenges.[7][6] One notable subsequent action involved plaintiff David A. Rancourt, who had initiated a lawsuit against MyLife and CEO Jeffrey Tinsley in Florida state court in December 2020, alleging harms related to the company's data practices; an amended complaint was filed on January 22, 2021, and the case persisted amid motions to compel arbitration and dismiss, with Tinsley added as a defendant.[54][55] On September 2, 2022, MyLife.com Inc. filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:22-bk-14858), listing estimated assets between $500,000 and $1 million against substantial liabilities, primarily stemming from regulatory penalties, consumer claims, and operational debts.[56][57] The filing aimed to reorganize amid pressures from the FTC settlement's financial demands and ongoing litigation, including efforts to centralize creditor disputes.[54] In the bankruptcy proceedings, the court granted MyLife's motion on September 6, 2023, to enjoin Rancourt from pursuing his claims outside the bankruptcy forum, citing the need to protect the estate from fragmented litigation.[54] The case was converted to Chapter 7 liquidation on February 9, 2024, with a claims bar date of September 25, 2024, and ongoing administration by a trustee to liquidate assets for creditors.[58] This bankruptcy effectively halted further independent lawsuits against the company, consolidating resolutions under federal oversight, though Tinsley, as an individual defendant in related actions, remained subject to potential separate pursuits.[54]Public Reception and Reviews
Consumer Ratings and Complaints
MyLife has received consistently low ratings across major consumer review platforms. On Trustpilot, it holds a 1.1 out of 5 rating based on 215 reviews as of recent data.[59] Sitejabber reports a 1.6 out of 5 rating from 427 reviews, with most customers expressing dissatisfaction.[60] ConsumerAffairs assigns a 1.0 out of 5 rating from 1,378 reviews, highlighting widespread frustration.[34] The Better Business Bureau (BBB) gives MyLife an F rating, citing failure to respond to 492 complaints and noting 15 additional recent filings.[61] Common consumer complaints center on billing practices, particularly unauthorized charges following trial subscriptions. Numerous users report enrolling in short free or low-cost trials (e.g., $1–$2 for 2–3 days) but facing repeated monthly deductions of $29.95 even after cancellation attempts, sometimes persisting for over a year.[62] Difficulty in canceling memberships is frequently cited, with reviewers describing unresponsive customer service and ineffective online cancellation processes.[59] Accuracy of reports draws significant criticism, including false attributions of criminal records or arrests not belonging to the individual. Consumers often discover fabricated or mismatched negative information in "teaser" previews, which prompts subscriptions only to reveal inaccuracies upon payment.[34] Opt-out and data removal processes are another frequent grievance, with users reporting prolonged delays, repeated submissions, and incomplete erasure of personal details despite legal requirements.[63] These issues have led to perceptions of the service as a "scam" or overpriced, with limited value in the background information provided.[34]| Review Platform | Rating | Number of Reviews |
|---|---|---|
| Trustpilot | 1.1/5 | 215 |
| Sitejabber | 1.6/5 | 427 |
| ConsumerAffairs | 1.0/5 | 1,378 |
| BBB | F | 492+ unresolved complaints |
| Yelp | 1.1/5 | 26 |