LAWYERS WEEKLY USA — Oct 30 — Randall Miller won a $434,000 verdict last November for a Ukrainian immigrant who was severely beaten by her husband, whom she met through an international online dating service. Because that case was based on specific federal laws protecting mail-order brides from other countries, it has little direct application to domestic online dating cases. But it is of some interest because the defense repeatedly tried – and failed – to get the case thrown out based on the argument that all a dating service does is arrange the meeting, and from there, the participants are on their own. TRUE and a number of safer dating interest groups are supporting state-level legislation aimed at reducing the dangers of online dating. Under the bill, which is being considered in six states – California, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Texas and Virginia – an online dating site would be required to either perform criminal background checks of its users or post a disclosure on its site indicating that it does not screen users. True.com already performs criminal background checks of its users, including a check of whether the individual is married. According to Terra Gray, VP Government Affairs, about 5% of the people who attempt to enter a profile are married and another 5% are felons. Opponents of the legislation worry that background checks will give online daters a false sense of security because no background check is foolproof. Herb Vest, Founder/CEO of TRUE, argued that it's still safer to perform background checks. But he agrees that if a firm touts that it does background checks, it would be wrong to say that without also disclosing the inherent fallibility of those checks.
Mark Brooks: This legislation is not going to go away. We need to take this seriously as an industry. I just hope the background check providers can provide checks that meet the expectations of users. I can see some bad press coming our way as felons slip through the net. Please post your comments/thoughts on background check providers.
What happens when a paid member emails a free member and they include contact info.
The free member turns out to be a murderer, was never screened but allowed to communicate with members. True.com would then be held accountable.
True.com states they perform background checks on people. This is not true, as they only do it for the paying membership.
True.com says they check to see if people are married, again they only do this for the paying membership.
What true.com actually does vs what it says it does are 2 different things and this would get them into a lot of trouble in the courts.
According to the draft laws they have proposed, they would have to put a disclaimer on each and every non paying profile saying this user has not had a background check done, and may or may not be married. If they don’t do that they will be open to a lot of liability.
Speaking of True.com, have you ever tried to remove yourself from their site (paid or trial)? You have to, get this, phone them and have them do it!
This is due to their “stringent security measures” (I could be impersonating someone else and have access to their password).
But, when you call, all they ask for is your handle and email. Ahem, excuse me, but how do they know you are who you say you are?
The mind boggles.
Hi Mark, Hi Sam,
We all know that even though “This legislation is not going to go away” it is also not going to do any good to users. There are 100’s reasons for it. What’s important to understand is that this eniter manoeuver is nothing more than marketing a-la True.com. They were trying to attract more ink, they keep doing it.
Therefore, I’d be very mute about this fruitless discussion. Unless, you are get paid by True. Let them do their work.
I’m impatiently waiting when the legislation is approved and then we’ll see how True loses case by case in court for consumers discrimination.
Hi people,
There’ve been so many words said and written in regards with the legislation initiated by True.com. I usually prefer to stay away from this fruitful arguments, ’cause True is not going to pay me to promote their stuff unlike all these PhD’s and lobbyists on True’s payroll.
But this time I decided to break my silence. Here is why.
People who understand the nature of the discussion keep saying that any kind of automated background check is not going to work because its very limitations. Therefore, security it is supposed to bring is more of an illusion. If so, why should the government be involved? It’s all true.
But now it seems I have an ultimate argument to support the idea that regulators should stay away from this.
As we all recognize safety and security are essentially important. No doubt about it. So if we assume that the security issue is resolved thank to “restless” True.com efforts, then the government should be involved in safety as well. I mean health issues associated with dating itself. Since dating and matchmaking are all about relationships and ultimately sex in the end, then a user should be provided with guarantees that the counterpart he/she is dating with is free of STI (sexually transmitted infections) and HIV-AIDS in particular.
Nobody will argue that health issue is as important as security. So the question is where is logic? If there is the background check legislation there must be STI check legislation too. And dating provider must be held liable.
And since True is such a great protector of users’ security, it also should implement STI check for all of its users. Otherwise, once somebody gets infected he/she will certainly require compensation from the provider.
Someone may say, “Use condoms.” And it’d be true. But condoms do not protect 100%. It’s first. And second, a similar argument can be brought up in to the background check discussion. “Meet in a public place. And expose all your relationship. You’ll be 100% safe.”
I’d love to hear from True guys and their PhD marketers.
Alex