overview
statistics
studies
hearts
e-brides
law
scams
fidelity
cautions
related
Guides:
Consumers
& Trust
Identity
Crime
related
Profiles:
Social
Network
Services
Vigilantes
Defamation
Cyberstalking
Forgery &
Forensics
Adult
Content
|
law, love and larceny
This page considers the dark side of online matchmaking.
It covers -
 introduction
Much of the promotional information about dating services
is relentlessly upbeat, a trait shared with the equaintance
services discussed elsewhere on this site.
Lavalife for example burbles that
Lavalife
is a new brand...a new community...a new world ... a
new vision for single life. Lavalife is solely dedicated
to enhancing the lives of singles.
More specifically, Lavalife offers singles anytime,
anywhere connections that make single life a positive,
fulfilling and self-esteem building experience through
relationship opportunities, social interaction and a
like minded community of ideas and information.
Panspective
("founded on the first day of the new millennium")
is
dedicated to producing products that redefine personal
and interpersonal communications on a global scale.
Some
observers have been less impressed by redefinition of
relationships (or merely extra opportunities to find a
soulmate or two, with or without infidelity)
and have pointed to the dark side of the online matchmaking
industry.
They have for example highlighted concerns regarding trafficking,
consumer protection, defamation,
identity theft, cyberstalking
and online vigilantes.
Those concerns have been reflected in calls for special
registration and ongoing supervision of matchmaking sites
(often as an extension of provincial legislation regulating
introduction services and even escort services). They
have also been reflected in statements by dating site
operators that emphasise their commitment to best practice
and the credibility of self-regulation.
self-regulation
Self-regulation in the online dating industry is a marriage
of commerce and convenience.
Most governments have been reluctant to deploy the resources
for close invigilation of communications between participants
in such services and, given rhetoric about internet exceptionalism,
have shied away from registration of those participants.
Dating service operators have been reluctant to absorb
costs associated with close supervision of participants
and of course have recognised that heavy-handed announcements
of surveillance by their staff will deminish the ardour
of at least some of potential customers and thus reduce
their market base.
Claims about self-regulation reflect broader social biases
(which are often inconsisten with actual behaviour) and
the values of particular service providers. US-based eHarmony
for example has faced criticism for perceived hostility
to gay daters. Marc Simoncini of France's Meetic boasts
You cannot register on Meetic if you are married. You
cannot register as a couple. You cannot register saying
I am single and want sex this afternoon. It is forbidden.
We control the site and would delete the user's profile
corporate
misbehaviour
In November 2005 the UK Independent reported
lawsuits against two US matchmaking services for fraud.
Match.com was accused of sending false emails to clients
and even sending its own staff on dates to keep clients
interested, a practice apparently known as 'date bait'.
Match.com denies the allegations. Yahoo was concurrently
being sued for breach of contract, fraud and unfair trade
practices regarding its personals service. In a San Jose
lawsuit it was accused misleading potential clients by
posting fake client profiles on its website. Yahoo made
no comment as of early November 2005.
Troubles of course are also found offline.
In 2006 a Los Angeles jury for example awarded 60 year
old widow Anne Majerik US$2.1m damages after she paid
over US$150,000 for a "money-back guaranteed billionaire
search with international men having estates worth up
to $50m", only to find that true love did not arrive.
The jury found that both parties to the dispute were "appalling",
with one commenting that it wanted to hit the defendant
with US$20m damages but could not bear the thought of
so much money going to Ms Majerik.
defamation
and revenge
Attention is also turning to action by the disgruntled,
unbalanced or merely impolite.
One example is the 2003 case
of Carafano v Metrosplash.com, in which a public
figure's persona was misappropriated on Matchmaker.com.
Consistent with a body of rulings under the CDA, the US
court held that the dating service was immune from third
party liability as an "interactive service provider".
It is unclear that courts in other jurisdictions will
necessarily extend the same leeway to all social networks.
Importantly, although the dating service operators may
enjoy protection as 'distributors' rather than 'publishers'
of online content, the authors of defamation
or individuals engaging in stalking or other offences
will generally find that they are held responsible for
action online and thus incur penalties that are consistent
with life offline.
next page (scams)
|
|
blaw