Legal

A Fox News broadcast called Kelly's Court (clip below) looks at the case which we talked about earlier this month regarding Sean McGinn suing Match.com for what he alleges is deceptive practices. His beef with Match is mainly about them not informing members who has paid, and who has not (see Story).

Sean is the man pictured in the still of the video below and in his Match.com profile he describes himself as having a cuddly but toned bod, is down to earth, and can pull off the dishevelled bed head look. Apparently he also mentioned in emails his favorite movie is Cocktail, starring Tom Cruise. Kelly's Court must of got some inside information and/or received full access to the court documents as this information hasn't been reported anywhere else. Plus, an extensive search of Match.com didn't produce Sean's profile. I am assuming Match.com has removed it.

The panel of legal experts took Match.com's side in the suit and stated Sean couldn't have suffered anguish, emotional distress and anxiety due to a dating site. Especially, when you compare it to other cases where people have suffered. They did say that some of Match.com's business practices could be argued as deceptive but as far as this case is concerned, not enough for Sean to win his lawsuit based on what he suffered. The final hole in Sean's case was, in the end he did find a girlfriend on Match.com.

The legal experts did tend to joke around a lot at Sean's expense. They may have been legal experts but they certainly did not know too much about dating sites in general. As far as dating profiles go his didn't sound bad. I would like to hear how the Kelly's Court panel of experts would describe themselves (seriously) in a dating profile.

Back in early February, 2009 Date.com started offering Virtual Gifts for sale to its members (see Story). Members could send virtual flowers, chocolates, etc.. to someone they wish to date on the site by purchasing tokens for $1 to $5.

The parent company of Date.com, Avalanche LLC wanted to make sure they met any legal obligations to their members when dealing with Virtual Gifts and tokens. No real laws have been made in regards to virtual gifts in most countries. The closest comparison in the real world they could find was gift cards. Lawyers for Date.com

ultimately concluded that the consumer laws pertaining to gift cards didn't apply.

Date.com decided to make purchasing of gifts as clear as possible in their Terms of Service. Specifically this mainly deals with what happens if a user doesn't use their tokens. Date.com's policy for members inactive more than 365 days is to delete them. Unused virtual gift tokens are then deleted as well, with Date.com keeping the profits. Before your account is deleted from Date.com, multiple emails are sent out warning you of this fact and asking you to log in again.

For more about the dating site, read our Date.com review.

Great Expectations is in legal trouble again.

Almost a year ago today the Arizona Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Great Expectations (see Story). In February of this year a settlement was reached for $500 thousand in the Arizona lawsuit (see Story). Now the state of Wisconsin is suing Great Expectations over deceptive marketing practices and improper contracts.

The lawsuit, filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, claims Great Expectations overstated the size of its membership, its membership in specific age groups and other categories and how many members wound up getting married. The complaint also alleges Great Expectations did not fully screen members for criminal histories and misrepresented how they would use credit information provided by prospective members.

Over 1,000 residents of Wisconsin have used the matchmaking service with some of them spending more than $3,000 on the service. Great Expectations has declined to comment on the lawsuit.

The lawsuit names GE- Milwaukee LLC, a Nevada company that does business as Great Expectations locally in Wauwatosa, a Milwaukee suburb, and its parent company, JRM Management of Dallas, Texas.

For more on this story, read JSOnline.

The news story of a federal suit by a man claiming he was deceived by Match.com (see Story) is now making headlines on TV news shows. Good Morning America did a piece about a man named Barry who is thinking of being part of a proposed class action lawsuit against Match.com. After using Match.com Barry felt "undesirable and rejected" since he received few responses to his winks and emails. The original federal lawsuit filed by Sean McGuinn

... alleges Match.com perpetrates fraud by returning inactive or canceled members in search results of seemingly dateable people.

He believes he was actually sending e-mails to ghosts of Match.com's past.

Mark Brooks of Online Personals Watch got in contact with Greg Blatt, the new CEO of Match.com to get a comment regarding the recent New York federal court suit filed by Sean McGinn (see Story) According to Blatt in a statement he made to OPW:

Match.com’s continued success depends upon the success of our members in making online connections and turning them into meaningful relationships offline. The allegation that we would deceive our subscribers by encouraging them to connect with inactive members therefore makes no sense and is contradicted by our 14-year record and the hundreds of thousands of members who find someone special on Match.com every year. We understand that finding romance, offline or online, can at times be emotional and personal, and we wish Mr. McGinn well in his search. But his lawsuit is without merit, and we will defend it vigorously.

It is true, Match.com for the most part does not let you know when you are searching that the dating profiles you are viewing are from paying members or not. The only time you can tell for sure is if the member has the Profile Highlight feature (it is highlighted in red). Most other paid dating sites (like eHarmony) operate the same way. What Match.com does do is attempt to return the most active members on the site that fit within your search criteria. Most active users are either the ones paying for the service to find a partner or new to the service looking to see what Match.com offers. What Match hopes with this strategy is when a paid user messages a new user, it will entice them to signup.

Despite how this suit goes, I bet Match will speed up the process of getting the new Platinum Membership out to all markets (Story). It's almost like they saw this suit coming since the Platinum Membership allows paid members to receive messages from any member they have contacted, whether or not they are a free or paid member of the dating service.

On Tuesday, Match.com was sued in New York federal court by Sean McGinn for $5 million. This New York man alleges Match.com deceives its members by posting profiles of dates who cannot respond to communication requests, since they have not paid for a subscription. McGinn attorney, Noah Hart says people leave the dating site feeling completely "ignored and rejected" since no one replies to their emails. Hart is hoping to turn this suit into a class action.

Online dating sites have been sued a number of times lately. eHarmony has been sued at least twice, over gay rights issues (see Story) and in March True.com was forced to pay a $1.5 million settlement in regards to their auto billing and renewal practices of memberships (see Story).