Banned in Australia? Open the file.
Europe has a referee who can overturn a ban. Australia does not. What Australia has instead is a law that lets us act for you by name, force the platform to hand over what is on your record, and put your side of it permanently into the file the next reviewer reads.
Filed within 48 hours or you pay nothing. We never ask for your password. Not taken on = refunded.
No Australian body can order a dating app to give your account back. Not the OAIC. Not the eSafety Commissioner, whose remit is online harms, not account bans. Not the ACCC. There is no Australian equivalent of the European referee, and we are not going to pretend there is.
The only body that can reinstate you is the platform. So the job is to make the platform's own reviewer read a case they cannot dismiss in nine seconds. Everything below is built to do that one thing.
Intake first. Payment after. Not taken on = refunded.
Your window is six months, and it is already running.
Tinder's own help centre says an action cannot be appealed if the violation happened more than six months ago, or if you have already appealed it. Bumble, Badoo, OkCupid, Match and Plenty of Fish publish the same outside limit. It started the day they banned you, not the day you found this page.
You get one submission. We write it, and we run the Australian routes alongside it that most people never hear about.
The one thing Australia does better than Europe.
Under European data law, a paid company is barred from acting as your representative. You have to file everything yourself. Australian privacy law has no such restriction, and the regulator says so in plain words:
“Only you or another person you have authorised, such as a legal guardian or authorised agent, can make the request.”
That single sentence is why an Australian case is worth more than a European one to run. We can put our name on it and send it ourselves. And because the Privacy Act reaches any company carrying on business in Australia, Tinder LLC in Texas is inside it.
What we actually run for an Australian case.
Four routes. Two we send as your agent, two you sign yourself, and we tell you which is which before you pay.
The only route that can put your account back, because the platform is the only body with the power. It is tied to your login, so we write it and you submit it. We never ask for your password, and we never sign in as you.
Australian Privacy Principle 12 makes them give you the personal information they hold, which includes what sits on your ban record. Either they hand over the file, or they must give you written notice naming the ground they are refusing on. Both outcomes are useful. A named refusal ground tells us what they think you did, which is the thing they otherwise never say.
This is the one almost nobody uses, and it is the best thing an Australian has. Principle 13 lets you demand they correct a record that is wrong or misleading. If they refuse, they are obliged to attach your statement of disagreement to that record and take reasonable steps to make it apparent to anyone who reads it. They have no discretion to refuse the statement, and by law they cannot charge you a cent for it. Your version stops being an email they closed and becomes part of the file.
If they ignore the access request, the OAIC takes a complaint on its own authorised representative form, so we can be the contact on it. Separately, if a paid subscription died with the account, Australian Consumer Law guarantees survive an American governing-law clause, which the ACCC established against Valve. That is a claim about money, never about the account.
Payment comes after the intake, never before. If we do not think we can help, we say so and you are refunded.
These get reversed every day.
The platforms' own 2025 transparency reporting. Their figures, not ours.
Those are not lottery odds. They are drafting odds - and how well your case is written is the one part of this you can still change.
Asked by Australians, answered straight.
No. The Digital Services Act referee is open to residents of the EU and the European Economic Area, and it asks you to declare that. If you live in Australia it is closed to you, and any service that files it on your behalf anyway is wasting your money.
Not with this. eSafety handles online harms such as image-based abuse and cyber abuse. An account ban is not in its remit, and telling you otherwise would just cost you weeks.
There is no hard statutory clock for a company. The law says a reasonable period, and the regulator's guidance is that this should generally not exceed 30 calendar days. Anyone quoting you a firm 30-day legal deadline for a company has misread it. Government agencies are the ones with the 30-day rule.
Expect it, and expect two specific grounds: suspected unlawful activity or serious misconduct, and commercially sensitive evaluative information. Both are legitimate. But they have to refuse in writing and name the ground, and that written notice is itself the thing we work from. They may also charge for access, and the charge must not be excessive.
No, and we will not imply it. The OAIC received 3,295 privacy complaints in 2024 to 2025 and issued ten determinations in the whole year. It is a slow lever that can force access or correction. It is not a route to reinstatement, and it is free, so you never need us to reach it.
Judgement and drafting. Which routes are genuinely open to you, in what order, written to be read by the person who decides. On an Australian case you are also paying for filings we can send under our own name, which is not true anywhere in Europe.
One shot. Make it the good one.
Ten minutes of questions now, and by this time tomorrow every route Australia gives you is written, and the ones we can send are sent. Payment comes after the questions, never before.
Filed in 48 hours for you · 3 days to change your mind · Not taken on = refunded
Independent service. Not a law firm, we do not give legal advice, and we are not affiliated with Tinder, Hinge, Bumble, OkCupid, Plenty of Fish, Grindr or Match Group. Reversal figures are the platforms' own published 2025 transparency reporting. Privacy Principle references are to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). No outcome is ever promised.