Legal

I am not surprised that Facebook is mentioned in divorce cases now days. It can be poison to marriages, as some couples I know spend more time on Facebook everyday than they do talking to each other. I had a laugh when I read that Facebook:

is nothing more than a gigantic catalogue of people you never quite slept with. Some friends, the occasional sibling, but mostly a huge, interactive menu of sexual roads less traveled.

I don't know a single person who has not used Facebook to look up a long lost flame or the one that got away. I am not saying that it is a bad thing but when people in relationships are on Facebook looking through pictures and talking to people from the old High School and/or University days, instead of spending quality time with their partner, you have to start to wonder.

Some people also see Facebook as nothing more than a dating site. Just like on a dating site, most people on Facebook reveal themselves selectively, according to what they think will show them in the best light. On dating sites you know this type of behavior happens, but with Facebook it has the appearance of being an open book, when it really is not.

For more on this story, read the Telegraph. If you are interested in a real dating experience on Facebook, you should check out our Zoosk review.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) court action against Scott Mark Moles and Jobspy Pty Ltd have seen fines totaling $6.5 million AUD over a mobile phone dating scam.

The scam generated more than $2 million in revenues and involved employees of Jobspy Pty Ltd creating fake profiles on legitimate dating site with the purpose of obtaining cell phone number of other members. The scammers would then conduct text message conversation with these members via a so-called "safe divert" service to keep their mobile phone number private. In reality the members who were being scammed, were being charged $5 per text message. They were told by the scammers that the "safe divert" service was part of their dating site membership fees.

For the full news item, read News.com.au.

Television and film actress Ashley Madison Myrick (no she is not a Porn Star, that was a mistake by Fox) most famous role was becoming James Woods' boyfriend for a while. Recently she has filed a lawsuit against online dating site Ashley Madison for the “humiliation’ she has endured over having the same name as the site which promotes having an affair. Apparently she wants the site to change its name and to take her picture off of a related site, AshleyMadisonbio.com.

According to a $1 million counter-suit filed by AshleyMadison.com against the actress, the website has had the name “Ashley Madison” trademarked since 2002. The actress Ashley Madison Myrick only started going by the name Ashley Madison 3 years later in 2005. AshleyMadison.com also claims that they do not own the website AshleyMadisonbio.com and have no control over it (whoever does own it, has taken it down anyways).

The infidelity dating site is suing Ashley Madison for using their trademark to “inappropriately garner goodwill” to support her acting career.

More on this story can be found at Fox News.

An east coast class action suit against Match.com has been moved to Dallas, where the company's head office is located. We have talked about this case before when it was just Sean McGinn suing Match.com, but I hadn't realize it had become a class action suit (see Story). One of the things the suit alleges is that the "vast majority of Match.com members are cancelled subscribers, or have never subscribed at all”. This leaves members feeling rejected after using the dating site, because only paid members can reply to their messages. The suit seeks to stop the company from engaging in these "deceptive practices".

As for the reason why the suit was moved, here is the direct quote:

U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that the case should be be tried in Dallas rather than New York because of a “forum selection clause” in the user agreement that Match.com members agree to when they sign up for the service. That forum selection clause specified said if a dispute arose, such case would be tried in Dallas or Collin County, court records say.

Match.com has said in a previous statement that the suit is without merit and that they will defend their position.

For more on the story, read Dallas Business Journal.

Oops, eHarmony.co.uk got into a little trouble with the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for a TV campaign which aired in 2008. The TV commercial in question shows 8 couples who me on eHarmony. A voice over states during the commercial:

It’s no surprise that over 4 million Americans get married each year. But what might surprise you is that 2% of those newlyweds said they met on eHarmony. And now we’re in the UK.

A total of 5 viewers challenged the 2% of marriages eHarmony claimed to be responsible for, and a further 3 complained about the "significant conditions" needed to receive free matches.

The ASA ruled that the eHarmony ad was misleading because it had made an absolute claim on the statistics in the ad and the dating site also failed to make it clear that 20% of all visitors who attempt to sign up to the service are disqualified. To fix this problem eHarmony plans to indicate that the statistics mentioned in the advertisement are the results of a study done by Harris Interactive in 2007. eHarmony will also further explain that to receive free matches new members must fill out a in-depth questionnaire and fall within the required age range and marital status.

For more on the story, read Marketing Week. To find out more about eHarmony, you can read our review.

California Superior Court Judge Ann Jones rejected eHarmony's attempt to dismiss a class action which deals with discrimination against gays. The jury trial is set to start February 1, 2010 and will take place in the Superior Court in Los Angeles. The Judge found that eHarmony had not presented any law that allowed the company to refuse to serve gays and lesbians at their main eHarmony dating site. The lead plaintiff in the class action is graduate student Nate Cardin. He attempted to use eHarmony in 2006 and when he could not and asked why, he received a form letter explaining that eHarmony is only for heterosexual relationships. Nate filed a class action in 2007 and is represented by the civil rights law firm of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP and the Law Offices of Jeremy Pasternak.

eHarmony did recently disclose that they had received over 3,000 email complaints from people who had visited eHarmony to find a relationship with someone of the same sex but was denied service. Previously eHarmony had made a deal with the New Jersey Attorney General and had opened up the dating site Compatible Partners to serve gay singles (see Story). This class action argues that eHarmony does not give "equal treatment of patrons in all aspects of the business".