(Online Dating Industry Journal) USAToday has published an article taking a look at the debate between dating services over online dating background checks. The article states that background checks are being considered in California, Virginia, Ohio, Texas, Florida and Michigan.
The ongoing efforts of True.com have so far failed as no laws in any state have been passed making background checks mandatory. And many online dating services, like Match.com are taking an active role in listing reasons why forcing online dating services to do background checks is a bad idea.
From the article:
"Match.com spokeswoman Kristin Kelly says the rest of the industry is 'united against' background checks, in part because such checks often are incomplete and can give clients a false sense of security... Match.com says background checks would add $10 to $15 to the cost of its three-month membership. Match.com charges $50.97 for three months and $29.99 for one month; a subscription to True.com costs $49.99 a month."
Joe's Comments:
I really wish reporters would ask some tough questions of True, like why it signed an exclusive contract with the largest online background check provider if its true goal is to have background checks widely used by services.
In the article Herb Vest, CEO of True, said that background checks can help the online dating industry's credibility. True doesn't have the right to talk about credibility as they are constantly doing things (sleazy ads, 20 winks feature and allowing employees to email members, etc.) that discredit their service.
I believe this is just a big publicity stunt by True and it's a shame that some legislatures don't see through it.
What is stopping internet dating sites from being located in another state? Or country?
Posted by: joe | December 27, 2005 at 11:49 PM