Legal

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).

Craigslist is fighting back from the bad press (see Story) they have received lately due to their Erotic Services classified ads category (which is now the Adult Services Category) and prostitution. They are suing Henry McMaster, the Attorney General of South Carolina for:

declaratory relief as well as a restraining order with respect to criminal charges he has threatened against the company and its executives.

The suit is in response to a threatening email they received from McMaster a couple of weeks ago telling them to either shut down Craigslist in the state of South Carolina or, face a criminal investigation and possible prosecution. Craigslist believes they are now in full compliance of the law because of the changes they recently made to the category (see Story).

For the full story, read Tech Crunch.

eHarmony has gotten into legal trouble again. Lynda Kelly and Miranda Soegi of California have initiated a federal class action lawsuit which claims that eHarmony does not have a scientifically proven system for matching members. Lynda and Miranda believe eHarmony have been misrepresenting the services they provide. They feel they did not receive the service they had paid for.

eHarmony have kept their matching algorithm a closely guarded secret while other sites like Chemistry (see Story) may slowly begin allowing us a peek inside. eHarmony has patents on their matching system so their multi-million dollar investment should be protected if they ever wanted to release more information about it ( U.S. Pat. No. 6,735,568 and 7,454,357). Check out the comments here for more of a discussion on eHarmony's matching system, including some comments from matching experts like Helen Fisher.

I don't think this lawsuit will get to far. eHarmony has been sued before so I am sure their Terms and Conditions have been made air tight by their legal experts. With dating sites that have a scientific matching system, I think what members get confused and angry about is, how loosely the matching algorithm gets applied. I have a feeling that the longer you are on the dating service, some of these sites (to enable to send you more matches) may lower the requirements for a match. Another thing members have to realize is the matches you do receive on these type of dating sites are from both free and paying members. Usually paying members can reply to you, free members cannot.

Misrepresentation is a problem on the internet in general. How many websites are you on in a day that claim to be the biggest or most popular? You will also find a lot of sites that claim to be free, while in fact they are not.

For more information on the story here is a copy of the legal complaint in pdf format.

eHarmony legal troubles may be over in New Jersey but in California they are just starting. According to a press release another class action lawsuit has been filed and certified by California Superior Court Judge, Victoria Chaney.

The plaintiffs in that case maintain that eHarmony’s decision to establish a separate site for gays rather than integrate its flagship site, eHarmony.com, amounts to an unlawful “separate but equal” policy and the continued marginalization of gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

eHarmony's separate site for gay singles is called Compatible Partners, which just launched recently.

An article on QUEERTY called If eHarmony Must Allow Gay Dating, Should Gay Sites Have To Welcome Straights? examines the California lawsuit more closely with some good comments by their readers. The author seems to be on eHarmony's side as he points out if eHarmony must allow gay singles to join their dating site, then sites like ManHunt and Adam4Adman should allow straight singles to join. Some of these gay dating sites do allow heterosexuals to join but most do not cater directly to this type of sexual orientation.

Yesterday we wrote about the True.com $1.5 million lawsuit settlement (see Story). Dallas News did a piece as well, which uncovered a few additional facts. The lawsuit will cover customers who were charged incorrectly as far back as 2003. A lawyer of the plaintiff (Thomas Wong) stated that both True.com and themselves can identify former customers that are eligible for a refund. Those that were charged for an extra 1 month membership will receive $35 and those charge with over a month may receive $50. Over 150,000 ex-members of True are expected to be compensated.

Before any refunds are handed out, this settlement still must be approved by U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey.

I was emailed some documents yesterday which involves the civil action case 3:07-cv-01244-N. This is the case where Thomas Wong and others, initiated a class action lawsuit against the dating site True.com about their auto billing and renewal practices of memberships. Thomas Wong originally filed his petition on June 12, 2007.

On Friday, in the Dallas, Texas federal court a $1.5 million settlement was filed. According to document 80-2:

The Settlement Agreement requires defendant TrueBeginnings, LLC ("True") to pay $1.5 million into a settlement fund that will be used to provide refunds to certain members of the Settlement Class, and to provide free 45-day subscriptions to certain other members of the Settlement Class (thereby providing several million dollars in additional benefit to the Settlement Class). In addition, the Settlement Agreement requires entry of an injunction prohibiting True from engaging in "auto-subscription" of ex-subscribers for at least four years...