A woman is suing a Beverly Hills matchmaking service founded by two sisters who have made media appearances touting their way of helping single people find romance, alleging she was falsely promised a guaranteed marriage if she paid the $20,000 fee.
The plaintiff is identified only as Jane Doe in the Los Angeles Superior Court, proposed class-action lawsuit that names as defendants Matchmakers in the City and its two sibling creators, Alessandra Conti and Cristina Conti Pineda. The suit alleges fraud, violations of the dating service contracts act and the state Business and Professions Code and breach of contract.
Doe seeks unspecified compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief stopping both any further alleged advertising or promising guaranteed marriage/matches as well as any enforcement of no-refund provisions.
An MITC representative issued a statement Sunday regarding the lawsuit filed Dec. 17.
“For over 13 years, our family-run matchmaking company has been rooted in old-school values, genuine care and a deep mission for helping people find meaningful connections,” the statement read. “The allegations in this lawsuit are false, unfounded and not supported by any evidence.”
MITC written contracts transparently define the services provided and the service never guaranteed marriage or specific relationship outcomes, the statement further read.
“We respect the legal process and are confident that the facts will clearly support our good-faith conduct,” according to the statement.
Alessandra Conti appears in Bravo’s “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” and she and her sister have her sister have been featured in Forbes, CBS, The New York Times, the CW Network, Fox News and more, according to the MITC website.
According to Doe’s suit, she met with the Conti sisters over Zoom before signing her contract and explained her criteria for a partner, including cultural, religious and racial preferences tied to the memory of her late husband.
The Contis assured Doe that they had a vast network and database of highly qualified and suitable candidates, that they could guarantee a marriage match if Doe signed up and that their relationship coaches were equivalent to licensed psychologists or therapists, the suit alleges.
“These assurances were false, but plaintiff relied on them in deciding to sign the contract and pay $20,000 upfront,” the suit states. The September 2024 agreement included a no-refund clause and as well as a “small-claims only” clause capping relief at $10,000, according to the complaint.
However, MITC failed to deliver the alleged promised guaranteed dates or marriage match, leaving Doe “financially devastated and emotionally traumatized,” the suit further states.
“At the time, defendants knew they had no such database, no ability to guarantee 10 qualifying dates, no way to guarantee marriage and no coaches equivalent to licensed therapists,” the suit states.
Doe continues suffering emotional distress and is undergoing counseling, according to the suit, which further alleges that Yelp reviews “confirm a broader pattern of fraudulent practices, with consumers calling MITC a `scam.”’