Online Dating Industry Journal

Great Expectations Dating Service Sued in Wisconsin

(Online Dating Industry Journal) The Wisconsin Department of Justice has filed an enforcement action in Milwaukee County Circuit Court against Great Expectations and its parent company, JRM Management. The complaint alleges that Great Expectations has committed numerous violations of Wisconsin’s consumer protection laws relating to deceptive marketing practices and dating service contracts.

According to the complaint, Great Expectations uses websites that appear to connect singles in particular Milwaukee area communities, such as milwaukeesingles.com, brookfieldsingles.com, and shorewoodsingles.org, which are registered to a company in India. The websites do not indicate any connection with Great Expectations, but consumers who complete on-line surveys are then called by Great Expectations telemarketers.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in the course of selling dating services, Great Expectations has made numerous misrepresentations, including:

a. Overstating the number of Great Expectations’ participating members, including the number of Milwaukee-area members;

c. Overstating the number of members in particular age ranges or other categories;

d. Overstating the number of marriages that occur between Great Expectations’ members every month;

e. Misrepresenting Great Expectations’ conduct of criminal background checks and screening out of prospective members with criminal histories; and

f. Misrepresenting the purpose for obtaining prospective members’ credit information.

In addition, many of Great Expectations’ contracts violate Wisconsin law governing dating service contracts by exceeding the statutory maximum of two years’ duration. Great Expectations has also failed to register with the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection as a telephone solicitor and has called consumers on the State’s no-call list.

The complaint asks the Court to impose forfeitures and penalties, to require restitution to consumers, and to enjoin the company from future unlawful behavior.

True.com Class Action Lawsuit Settled

(Online Dating Industry Journal) Over the past two years we've reported quite a bit on the class action lawsuit against True.com over the company's questionable billing practices. The Online Dating Newsletter has posted an article about the class action lawsuit finally being settled (for $1,5 million). Click here to read the article. We are reviewing all the court documents for a more in-depth article.

True.com Denied in Class Action Lawsuit

(Online Dating Industry Journal) The new Online Dating Newsletter reported in its first issue today that a federal judge has ruled against True.com in the company's request for a summary judgment in a class action lawsuit filed against True.com last year.

From Online Dating Newsletter's story:

"On December 3, 2008, United States District Judge David C. Godbey issued his ruling, stating:

'Because there are genuine disputes of material fact regarding the validity of the November 2006 and February 2007 charges to Wong’s credit card, the Court denies True’s motion for summary judgment...'"

Click here to read the full story
Click here to subscribe to the new Online Dating Newsletter

Class Action Lawsuit Against eHarmony Certified

(Online Dating Industry Journal) In California, a Superior Court Judge in Los Angeles has granted certification status to a class action lawsuit against eHarmony for discriminating against gays and lesbians. The online relationship service is accused of refusing to match those looking for same-sex partners.

A major blow to eHarmony is that the judge certifying the case says that those who are a part of the class action lawsuit don't need to prove any damages. All they need to do is confirm that they tried to use the service and weren't allowed to receive same-sex matching results.

Online Dating Magazine has published an article on the Lawsuit titled "Class Action Lawsuit Against eHarmony Certified."

only need to demonstrate that they were not matched with someone of the same sex.

State of New Jersey versus eHarmony Settlement Agreement

(Online Dating Industry Journal) Online Dating Magazine has published the terms of the settlement between eHarmony and the State of New Jersey. It is published in Online Dating Magazine's Online Dating Industry section.

A quick overview:

- eHarmony pays the person who filed the complaint $5,000.
- eHarmony pays the State of New Jersey $50,000.
- eHarmony opens a service for same-sex matching by March 31, 2009.
- eHarmony must advertise and promote the service to gays and lesbians.
- eHarmony gives the person who filed the complaint a free one-year membership.
- eHarmony provides the first 10,000 users with free memberships.

You can read the settlement terms by clicking here.

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.