WebVetted ™ Beta
+ New Report

Domain Due Diligence
Report for Https://teaforwomen.com

Report Date September 26, 2025
Recommendation
Caution
Overall Summary
Suspicious
Why we think so

Verdict: ⚠️ Suspicious — not a classic payment or phishing scam, but there are strong privacy and legal risk signals. The site backs a popular app (Tea) with ~642k estimated monthly visits (SimilarWeb, Aug 2025) and real contact emails (contact@teaforwomen.com, support@teaforwomen.com). Technical infrastructure looks legitimate (AWS, Cloudflare, HTTPS), and the domain has public social links. Major red flags: multiple news reports (Jul 2024–Jul 2025) of a large data breach that leaked ~72,000 images and ongoing defamation/legal disputes tied to user-posted content. No public evidence of mass financial theft or blacklist listings, but the platform’s privacy failures and lawsuits make it risky to share personal or identifying data.

Confidence Score
63%

Risk Insights

⚠️

High privacy risk from past breaches

News reports document a breach that exposed ~72,000 images, including IDs.
Breaches and leaks increase risk of doxxing and harassment for users.
No evidence found of mass financial theft, but privacy harm is significant.
✅

Legitimate product footprint

Estimated ~642k monthly visits (Aug 2025), mostly US traffic.
Uses mainstream hosting (AWS), Cloudflare and G Suite.
Public contact emails and social profiles available.

Contradictory Signals

The site appears operational and widely used, yet its history of privacy incidents and lawsuits reduces its overall trustworthiness for sensitive uses.

Signal A: High traffic and public contacts indicate a real, active business.

Signal B: Major data breaches and legal disputes create strong trust and safety concerns.

Category Scores

Identity 70/100
Reputation 40/100
Technical 75/100
Content 60/100
Legal 30/100
Business Validity 65/100

Red Flags & Warnings

  • Confirmed data breach(s) exposing ~72,000 images and ~13,000 photo IDs (reported in 2024–2025).
  • Multiple defamation lawsuits and local legal impacts tied to user-posted content on the app.
  • WHOIS details are missing from the fetched records, reducing transparency about ownership and domain age.

🔎 Detailed Checks & Analysis

WHOIS / registrant transparency

Score: 40/100
Failed

"The fetch returned no WHOIS metadata; that reduces traceability and makes it harder to confirm long-term ownership or corporate registration."

Reason: WHOIS records were not returned in the evidence set, limiting ability to verify ownership and domain age.

Technical infrastructure

Score: 80/100
Passed

"Observed technologies include Amazon hosting, Cloudflare CDN, G Suite email and HTTPS — a typical modern stack for legitimate apps."

Reason: Site uses reputable hosting (AWS), Cloudflare CDN and HTTPS; these are standard indicators of maintained infrastructure.

Traffic and popularity

Score: 70/100
Passed

"SimilarWeb reports ~642,686 visits in Aug 2025, with the United States as the leading country; traffic mix includes search and social."

Reason: High estimated monthly visits (~642k) and broad country distribution indicate a real user base, not a throwaway site.

Contactability and business identity

Score: 75/100
Passed

"Public emails (contact@..., support@..., press@...) and company LinkedIn/Instagram profiles reduce the chance this is a fake landing page."

Reason: Multiple email addresses, LinkedIn and social links are published on the site which support a verifiable identity.

News / third-party reporting

Score: 25/100
Failed

"Reputable outlets (Yahoo Finance, Cybernews, ABC7, USA Today and others) reported on breaches and lawsuits in 2024–2025 — that is a substantive negative signal."

Reason: Multiple independent news stories document a serious data breach and legal disputes, which is a major trust concern.

Blacklist / phishing indicators

Score: 60/100
Passed

"Crypto scam sniffer and Google Safe Browsing returned no risk matches in the provided data, lowering indicators of phishing or malware."

Reason: No matches on major scam blacklists or Google Safe Browsing in the retrieved evidence.

Trademark / brand impersonation

Score: 70/100
Passed

"No USPTO trademark hits were found for the query used; this does not guarantee trademark clearance but shows no direct conflict in the sampled search."

Reason: USPTO search returned no conflicting trademarks for the provided query, reducing immediate brand-impersonation concerns.

Your Next Steps

  • 1
    Do not upload or share government IDs, selfies, or other sensitive photos with the service until privacy controls and storage practices are independently verified.
  • 2
    If you’re a user, enable any available account protections, change passwords after the reported breach dates, and monitor for doxxing or harassment.
  • 3
    Check your bank and card statements for unfamiliar charges and dispute any you don’t recognize, but note that no widespread financial theft has been reported.
  • 4
    Follow news coverage and official incident updates (e.g., company blog or major outlets) for remediation progress and legal outcomes.
  • 5
    If you received targeted harassment or exposure from the platform, save evidence and consult a lawyer about defamation or privacy remedies.

Evidence & Citations

🕵🏻 Keep investigating

Recommended →
🌐 Scan another website

Run another instant due diligence scan on any website URL. Verify before you trust!

Spot fake SaaS login pages before handing over credentials

Phishing crews spin up carbon-copy login portals for CRM and finance tools, siphoning credentials before users realize t...

Read playbook →
Analyze giveaway landing page phishing

Giveaway pages entice with consoles or flights, then harvest card data and selfies “for verification.” ScamAI checks reg...

Read playbook →