At first glance, SecretLoveForUs.com is quite appealing, mainly thanks to the endless list of beautiful women that appear on the screen. After the initial surprise, we can only wonder what the point of this platform is. And to be totally honest, we still do. There is absolutely no information on the landing page to guide users on what they can actually do here. Spotting a possible scam, we reluctantly signed up to try to find out more. We have to admit that this review was the most unpleasant experience we have had so far.
The following note is from the terms and conditions
We may display, include or make available third-party content (including data, information, applications and other products services) or provide links to third-party websites or services ("Third- Party Services").
You acknowledge and agree that Secret Love For Us shall not be responsible for any Third-Party Services, including their accuracy, completeness, timeliness, validity, copyright compliance, legality, decency, quality or any other aspect thereof. Secret Love For Us does not assume and shall not have any liability or responsibility to you or any other person or entity for any Third-Party Services.
Users are taken for patsies
In any case, this is reason enough not to recommend this shady site. In our experience, there is every chance that it conceals a scam of some sort.
To find out what kind of rip-off SecretLoveForUs.com has in store, you either have to sign up for a subscription that starts at a staggering €50 per week or buy credit packs for a minimum of €50. This grants you 1,000 credits, with no way of knowing what they are for or what the value of a unit is.
Needless to say, we would not recommend this site to anyone, except perhaps our worst enemy, in the hope that we might finally find out a little more. Especially since the site's company has deliberately chosen to use a paid service to hide their identity. If the site offered a genuine and reliable service, it goes without saying that the information would be more transparent. This is clearly not the case here.