company believed the complaint was "an unfair characterization of our business", it chose to settle because of the unpredictable nature of litigation. In 2010, eHarmony settled a separate class-action lawsuit filed in California that alleged illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation. The company, which did not admit wrongdoing, agreed to allow access to both its gay and straight dating sites with a single subscription, to display its gay dating services more prominently and to establish a settlement fund to pay people who can show they were harmed by the company's policies. , about 200,000 people had registered with Compatible Partners. Michelle Garcia, writing in the LGBT-interest magazine, The Advocate, also said that, like eHarmony, Compatible Partners attracts high-quality customers. According to Garcia, "Because of the price tag and the emphasis on long-term relationships... Compatible Partners' users are seen as quite desirable." Matching paying members with non-paying members After approval by the questionnaire, eHarmony begins to match members regardless of their subscription status. A member's list of matches does not indicate which members are paying or non-paying, so users may not be able to communicate with all of their matches. Security breach On June 6, 2012, eHarmony confirmed that its password database had been breached and a section of its user base had been affected. Affected members were sent e-mails by the company requesting them to change their password immediately. Explaining success A 2010 article published by the Harvard Business Review attributed the success of eHarmony's system to their large membership base, their efforts to exclude people who are not serious about dating, and their membership fees being more expensive than the fees for other dating websites. The author hypothesizes that, since eHarmony's questionnaire and high cost of membership deter people who are interested in casual dating, eHarmony's members are more likely to be interested in a long-term relationship. Criticism over claims A 2012 analysis of dating websites by Scientific American stated that eHarmony, along with other algorithm-based dating sites, had not yet provided members of the scientific community with information about their matching algorithm which could be used to vet their claims about their algorithms being scientifically based. In 2014, eHarmony was criticized by the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau over claims the company had made about their rates of success. This occurred after Match.com challenged claims made by eHarmony about the two companies' relative success. In