Is transparency enough when our behaviour is being influenced/manipulated?

There are big ethical questions to be answered around the use of big date and behaviour experiments.
Following the revelation that the dating agency OKCupid had experimented with putting the "wrong" people together last month, the OKCupid founder has stated "If you use the Internet you're the subject of hundreds of experiments at any given time, on every site. That's how websites work".  And yet OK Cupid's users have complained about the lack of transparency and abuse of trust. They clearly don't quite see it in the same way.

So, if an Internet site/brand is transparent about the fact that they are using your data to increase their sales is this sufficient to satisfy consumers and keep/regain their trust?. Behavioural expert Steve Martin has stated that if brands add value and act transparently, consumers are less likely to feel deceived. However, this is not how everyone sees it. Following the Facebook manipulation of data earlier in the summer a US senator has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate.

The three key tenants of this website have been the 3 Ts, that transparency and fair treatment help to build trust and boost value. What is perhaps missing in the arguments above is the fair treatment aspect. Being transparent is not enough on its own, it is also a question of being fair, and fairness in this context has to be what consumers consider is fair; this means asking them and taking proper note of their feedback and concerns. Without this the already poor levels of trust and confidence in business is going to dip further and that's not in anyone's interest.