Online Dating Background Check Bill Dies

(Online Dating Industry Journal) The Internet Predator Awareness  and Online Safety Act (SB 1536, HB 411), that was being considered in Florida, no longer exists due to the bill dying after being referred to the Committee on Criminal Justice. The Bill, which picked up steam in late March, never was referred to a Senate vote. Senate sessions concluded on May 2, 2008, and earlier this week the official final entry into the Bill's status became "Died in Committee on Criminal Justice on Monday, May 05, 2008 7:11 AM."

The Bill would have required online dating services to do background checks on Florida residents or disclose via several mediums (online, email, etc.) that they don't do background checks.

The bill gained momentum in late March after being approved by the Commerce Committee and receiving a lot of media attention. However, after its initial victory, the Bill went nowhere.

Another attempt at passing an online dating background check bill in Florida will likely take place again next year as it has the last four years. Each time the bill was sponsored by Rep. Kevin Ambler.

Related Links
Opposition Letter to Florida Background Check Bill
Florida Bill Changes

Florida Bill Changes

(Online Dating Industry Journal) The Internet Predator Awareness and Online Safety Act, previously referred to as HB411 is now being referred to as SB1536. HB411 is now moving forward as a library online safety bill while the Internet Predator Awareness and Online Safety Act is sitting in Criminal Justice.

With the Florida legislative session set to end on May 2, a lot will have to happen in order for the Internet Predator Awareness and Online Safety Act to become law.

The bill is controversial as it is one of several attempts, by a handful of states, to regulate online dating services and the way they operate by requiring them to do background checks of members or prominently post, with specific verbiage, that they don't. Since different states (like New Jersey) have different requirements, it only brings confusion to the industry as more than one state passes variations of online dating background check Bills.

The NetChoice Coalition recently filed an opposition letter to the Florida bill saying that the bill has several flaws in addition to interfering with techniques online dating services are currently working on for safety.

Glossary
HB - House Bill
SB - Senate Bill

Men Courting Overseas Women Could Break Laws

(Online Dating Industry Journal) Men who are courting overseas women for potential marriage could end up breaking laws set in the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) that became law in 2006. The law, which seeks to protect information on overseas women from men until certain conditions are met, is meant to stop abusive men from marrying women overseas then bringing them to the United States.

The Red Herring has posted a blog article titled "Men Dating Online Could Break Law," which discusses IMBRA. From the article:

"...A federal law, the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, makes it a felony for a man in the United States to communicate with a foreign woman via a fee-based dating web site, without the man first submitting unilaterally to criminal background and sex-offender checks and certifying all previous convictions or arrests, marriages, or divorces, children, and states of residence since the age of 18. The foreign woman, in this scenario, is not held to the same investigation..."

Click here to read the full article.

IMBRA became law in March 2006. Online Dating Magazine's Inside the Industry column tackled the issue on March 3, 2006. Click here to read the column.

Related Links
A Look at the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act

Match.com Forces Removal of YouTube Video

(Online Dating Industry Journal) Last year, an employee of Match.com made a creative behind the scenes video showing what it's like to work at Match.com set to the music of "Bohemian Like You". We wrote about it in August and it was also added to Online Dating Magazine's Dating Humor Videos section. According to Google's YouTube, Match.com has filed a copyright claim over the video, forcing YouTube to remove it. Google complied and the video is no longer available for public viewing.

Joe's Comments
The video we dubbed "Typical Day at Match.com" was very creative and one of the most popular videos that our readers would watch. It had a lot of positive comments and a high rating on YouTube. Now I could understand if the creators of "Bohemian Like You" filed a claim, but for Match.com to do it and have it removed is a shame.I can only hope that the person who produced it didn't get into any kind of trouble.

The video gave Match.com personality and made people appreciate the fun atmosphere. It's a shame that Match.com had it removed.

Proposed Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Means Changes for Yahoo! Personals

(Online Dating Industry Journal) A proposed settlement for a class action lawsuit filed against Yahoo! Personals in 2005 could bring changes to the service that give users more control over their profile. The proposed Terms of Settlement are as follows:

1. To the extent that they are not already in place, no later than 30 days after Final Approval of the Settlement, Yahoo! will take the following actions, which shall remain in force and effect for a period of two (2) years from the date of Final Approval of this Settlement by the Court:

(a) Yahoo! will maintain the "Report a Complaint" link on the profile detail pages appearing on the Yahoo! Personals website.

(b) Profiles that have been inactive for a period of 120 days shall be rendered unsearchable by Yahoo! and Yahoo! shall include this notification in its Additional Terms of Service relating to Yahoo! Personals.

(c) When a user of Yahoo! Personals cancels his or her subscription, a screen will be presented to the user giving the user the option to delete the profile, render the profile unsearchable or keep the profile active. If the user makes no selection, the profile will automatically be deactivated.

(d) Yahoo! will maintain mechanisms in place to detect duplicative photographs, abusive language and the revelation of improper personal information.

(e) Yahoo! will update its Additional Terms of Service relating to Yahoo! Personals to inform its users that that they may see profiles or other content which they feel were created by third parties, contrary to obligations in the applicable terms of services, guidelines and code of conduct, for purposes other than dating, including spam and commercial profiles.

(f) Yahoo! will modify its Additional Terms of Service relating to Yahoo! Personals to include disclosures regarding searchable Yahoo!-created test profiles, if any, that may be used when necessary to ensure service quality. The modifications will disclose how searchable test profiles, if any, are designated so that they are readily identifiable to users.

(g) Yahoo! may make additional changes to its site content, site functionality and Terms of Service in its sole discretion that do not substantially lessen the effectiveness of the changes listed above within the two-year period that this provision remains in effect.

2. Under the Settlement, an eligible Class Member who was a paid subscriber to Yahoo! Personals between October 1, 2004 and August 3, 2007, and who viewed a profile during his or her subscription period that he or she believes was posted for purposes other than dating, is eligible to receive a one-time payment of up to $35.00. If you are an eligible Class Member and wish to receive this benefit, you must timely submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator as described above.

The lawsuit was originally filed in October 2005, alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and misrepresentation, among other things. The allegations stem from the plaintiffs belief that profiles were posted on Yahoo! Personals for purposes other than dating appeared on the Yahoo! Personals website. To this day, Yahoo! Personals denies all the allegations of the lawsuit, even though it is participating in the settlement to avoid long litigation.

If approved, Yahoo! Personals will contribute $4 million to the settlement fund, in which the money will come out to pay former eligible Yahoo! subscribers $35.

You can read more about the original lawsuit here (from November 2005).

Joe's Comments
The problem with Yahoo! Personals settling is that it could open the door to more class action lawsuits in the future. If you are truly innocent, fight it, and win (even if it costs more to do so), then it sends a message that you are serious about defending yourself. Either way, the changes in the settlement are good ones for online daters. Hopefully other sites will follow suit, particularly when it comes to purging old profiles.

Inside the Industry: True.com Lawsuit

(Online Dating Industry Journal) The newest Inside the Industry column at Online Dating Magazine takes a closer look at the True.com lawsuit, including quotes directly from the lawsuit. In addition to discussing the lawsuit, the column provides a few pointers to people who run online dating services and praises the cancellation policy of new online dating service Let's Grab a Drink, which provides refunds for remaining time on a person's account when they cancel.

One of the points of the lawsuit is how True.com signs up people online, but doesn't let them cancel online. From the lawsuit:

"Upon information and belief, most organizations that make a majority of their sales via online subscriptions and/or memberships maintain an online system for written cancellation of subscriptions and/or memberships. Given that, upon information and belief, a majority of the Company's subscriptions are purchased online via True.com, it is unreasonable for the Company not to also maintain an online cancellation system and written record of subscription cancellations."

The column's Cheers and Jeers section takes a look at the new TV series, "Confessions of a Matchmaker". Click here to read the column.

More on True.com Lawsuit

(Online Dating Industry Journal) More details are emerging on the class action lawsuit filed against online dating service True.com. Online Dating Magazine has published some excerpts from the True.com lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by Tycko & Zavareei LLP (based in Washington, D.C.) and Crews, Shepherd & McCarty LLP (based in Dallas, Texas) on behalf of plaintiff Thomas Wong who joined True.com in August 2006, but was still charged after cancelling and never refunded the disputed charges. The law firms representing the plaintiff are looking for others who had similar situations.

The lawsuit alleges that True.com put in its Terms and Services that members who dispute charges on their card can be fined $1,000 per incident by True.com. And despite saying members can "cancel anytime", True.com only allows cancellations by phone during specific hours.

The lawsuit is seeking refunds for those represented by the class action lawsuit, punitive damages, lawyer fees, and an order for True.com to stop its alleged fraudulent practices.

Read more here.

Joe's Comments
When you put the consumer first, you don't face these types of problems. When you get greedy and put money above everything else, then the consumers will turn on you. In addition to the above, we also learned that True.com was charging members for "three separate services". This includes a fee for the "live chat" feature on True.com and a fee for "coaching". This is why some members were seeing smaller monthly charges continue on their card after they cancelled their membership. Also revealed is True.com's alleged practice of deceiving members into automatically resubscribing without their authorization, simply by clicking on a link in an email message reportedly from someone interested in them.

True.com Lawsuit Seeks Class Action Status

(Online Dating Industry Journal) A lawsuit seeking class action status was filed today against online dating service True.com alleging fraudulent billing and cancellation practices. The lawsuit was filed by Tycko & Zavareei LLP who has been seeking experiences by True.com members for several months. Joining Tycko & Zavareei LLP in the lawsuit is the law firm of Crews, Shepherd & McCarty LLP based out of Texas, where True.com operates as True Beginnings, LLC. The name of the lawsuit is "Wong v. True Beginnings, LLC".

You can read more about the lawsuit by reading "Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against True.com for Customer Charges and Cancellation Policy" at Online Dating Magazine.

Joe's Comments
Does this lawsuit really surprise anyone? True.com tried to set itself up as a company "concerned" for online daters by trying to get background check legislation forced into the online dating industry. Now the company's TRUE colors are coming out. I don't think we'll see much sympathy from the public on this one. In addition, my opinion is that the negative publicity from this lawsuit will easily cancel out any good publicity True.com has tried to get in the past with its background legislation practices. And now you have to ask yourself, will legislatures really want to align themself with True.com and this lawsuit exposing the company's "dirty" practices?

Law Firm May Go After True.com

(Online Dating Industry Journal) Law firm Tycko & Zavareei LLP is looking into the possibility of filing a lawsuit, on behalf of consumers, against companies like True.com who allegedly bill customers after they've cancelled their service. Tycko & Zavareei LLP is asking for consumers who have been billed after cancelling to contact them and share their experience. They have set up an online form here.

In a February 2007 issue of PC World, the magazine named True.com as one of the worst offenders. The Online Dating Industry Journal did an article on this that you can read here.

Joe's Comments:
Those who feel they've been wronged by True.com may finally get justice. If anyone reading this submits a complaint and goes this route, please keep me posted - jtracy@onlinedatingmagazine.com - on the process.

More on eHarmony Lawsuit

(Online Dating Industry Journal) The Associated Press also has an article with more details on the lawsuit by Californian lawyer John Claassen against eHarmony for not allowing him to use the site because he was separated, but still married. From the article:

"An e-mail Claassen said he received from the company's customer service department explained that "we have to create rules based on what's best for most people, most of the time." It says eHarmony is in the business of matching singles "free of relationship commitments."

The stance is based on customer surveys that show the vast majority of users want their matches to be divorced, widowed or never married at all, according to the company. Claassen would be welcome to join "once your divorce is final," the e-mail stated."

Claassen is seeking $12,000 in civil penalties. His divorce is expected to be final within the next two months.