Match.Com Lawsuit: Woman Sues Dating Site After Being Attacked

LOS ANGELES -- A California woman is suing a popular Internet dating site, saying she was sexually assaulted by a man she met on Match.com.

Attorney Mark L. Webb says he filed the Los Angeles Superior Court civil lawsuit on Wednesday on behalf of an entertainment executive identified only as Jane Doe.

The suit demands that Match.com screen its members for sexual predators. Webb says he's asking for a temporary injunction barring the site from signing up more members until his client's demands are met.

Webb says the woman met the alleged assailant last year at the Urth Cafe in West Hollywood. After a second date, the attorney says the man followed her home and attacked her.

A telephone message left Thursday for Match.com's IAC corporate owner in New York wasn't immediately returned.

Comments

[SHSscreening]

08:52 AM on 04/23/2011

I would caution just checking the National Sex Offender Registry as many, many sex offenders bypass having to register as a sex offender, only required to register for a period of time and the state registries vary dramatically in who is required to register. As a case study I recently monitored a sex offender who was released from prison and it took 9 months for him to show up on the registry. Photos will not do anything either. Look at Ted Bundy. Predators are not always scary looking. The only legitimate answer for dating sites is to require quality background checks of members otherwise the cheap background checks will only provide a false sense of security. One option would be to have dating services to provide an integration with a background screening firm such as Safe Hiring Solutions that allows members to pay for the background check before proceeding.

[NumberforLove]

08:44 PM on 04/21/2011

It is extremely difficult to get this right. There are a few options out there though; we use S2Verify to check for criminal history on NumberForLove. Dating sites can use the national sex offender database but the real problem lies with the issues that reader9999 and Phreaked pointed out.

You need to limit non-subscr­ibers and subscriber­s who don't have photos and don't allow hidden profiles. You need to have granular privacy options as well. If you're not going to screen every user then at least let subscribers click to screen someone prior to going on a date. No system is perfect but Match can do better. After that it rests with the subscriber to take the necessary steps to protect themselves though.

[MissB]

01:26 PM on 04/19/2011

How about checking lists of registered sex offenders?

[euromarkusx]

09:10 PM on 04/16/2011

Maybe bars should do background checks on customers too.

Insane to think Match should be on the hook for this.

[Milrepa]

08:46 PM on 04/16/2011

Technology (the provider and springboard for online dating sites) is such a new toy, and people will look back and wonder how they could have been so stupid as to have paid such lavish attention to it. It's the free Maserati for 7/11 bandits. There's a zucker born every minute.

[Spiggy]

02:05 AM on 04/16/2011

I yearn for the day that people will stop blaming others for the misfortunes that occur in their life.

It just snowed and slipped on the sidewalk....instead of being more careful...I'll sue

I went out on a date and got hooked up with a sex offender...instead of being more careful. i'll sue

My curtains did not have a disclaimer on them telling me that I could not place a candle directly underneath of them....I'll sue.

Now don't get me wrong...what happened to this woman is wrong. But blaming the company for your bad luck is like blaming Ford because you do not know how to drive and got in an accident. Lawyers in this country always have a sue first mentality it seems, suing over a cup of spilled coffee because it was too hot. Well for one of course its hot...it is coffee,..and why was it stuck between your legs.

I do not think I will ever see the end of frivolous lawsuits like this...problem is, she will probably win. She wins this while wal mart gets away with ripping off it's workers daily.

The American justice System....The best judicial system money can buy

[reader9999]

10:33 PM on 04/15/2011

What's unbelieveable is that over half of match.com's members are not even subscribed anymore and that there's no way paying members can hide their profile from those non-subscribers or from subscribers who don't have photos or who "hide" their profiles but search others. Also, there's no way to go online without everyone knowing you're online and even when you last were online. Match's explanation for these policies is that "all members benefit." It's a stalker heaven is what it is, actually. I subscribe, but I really resent these policies and if there was a decent competitor, I'd be gone in a heartbeat. Expecting them to screen isn't realistic. The cost would double, at least. However, expecting them to exclude cancelled subscribers and provide better privacy options is completely realistic, and members should demand it for their personal safety. Facebook has privacy options - why can't match? It's all about the money over customers' safety, peace of mind, and the quality of the service.

[Drew Puli Wolf]

05:18 PM on 04/15/2011

It sounds like a good idea to check for predators, but all the web site has is only a name from the Credit Card, they do not have the Social Security Number. Ever look yourself up on the internet? If you have a common name like me you will find 100s of links but not one is me. I even found someone with my name with a daughter the same name as mine. My daughter was embarrassed, a porn star has the same name has her on IMDB. Unfortunately technology cannot always save us, sometimes you just have to use common sense and that may not always help.

[gemini68]

04:45 PM on 04/15/2011

Makes sense to me that they should screen for predators.

[Phreaked]

05:01 PM on 04/16/2011

Its not practical, people can lie about their name or have alias's

[gemini68]

09:32 AM on 04/18/2011

It can be very practical if handled properly.

[Marionette]

11:45 PM on 04/16/2011

true, but what happens if it's a predator's 'first attack'? how do you screen for that?

[gemini68]

09:40 AM on 04/18/2011

I agree that a background check won't be able to protect you from every likelihood but it is better than nothing at all.

[Esteban Steven Escobar]

02:16 PM on 04/15/2011

Breaking News: Match.com Statement on Entertainment Executive Woman Suing Site, please read more at http://diversitynewspublications.com/2011/04/breaking-news-match-com-statement-on-entertainment-executive-woman-suing-site/

[defpunisher]

01:06 PM on 04/15/2011

so if you meet the guy in a club - you sue the club?

you meet the guy in the library- you sue the library?

you meet the guy at your girlfriend's party- you gonna sue her!!!!????

lawsuits are out of control-
let's be real.....

dating is a risk- you decide
socializing is a risk-you decide
all you can do is exercise your best judgment-there's always a risk
you have no one to blame but the criminal
if you don't want to take the risk -
stay home alone

[Esteban Steven Escobar]

03:37 PM on 04/15/2011

see response from Match.com http://diversitynewspublications.com/2011/04/breaking-news-match-com-statement-on-entertainment-executive-woman-suing-site/

[jusathot]

04:37 PM on 04/16/2011

Whose side are you on there?

[econ1]

12:03 PM on 04/15/2011

Maybe the lawyer should go after the attacker. But he probably doesn't have any money so look around for anyone who does.

[TrishMcDermott]

01:15 PM on 04/15/2011

As a member of Match.com'­s founding team and their former "VP of Romance," and dating expert for ten years (I am no longer with Match), I wanted to weigh in. These are my views.

I am so sorry that she this woman had to experience something so awful and senseless.
Whether you meet someone online, at a party or at a bar, no one can guarantee how he or she will behave. Sadly, even having passed a background check does not guarantee someone will behave well.

Some dating sites require background checks. Consumers have the right to make a choice. There is a false sense of security that occurs when someone has "passed" a criminal background check. We may let down our guard or give our trust to someone who has yet to demonstrat­e behavior that is trustworth­y. Just because someone does not have a criminal record, we should not assume they are not a criminal. They may be a very good criminal and never get caught. Do you want your own background investigat­ed? Not everyone will. There are some very kind and upstanding people who may have made a mistake in their distant past. Should they all be eliminated from the Internet's dating pool? Quality of the background check can also be an issue. What if the crime happened in another country? Or under a previous name? Consumers should have the right to decided whether or not they want to pay a premium price for this service.

[fiberoptimist]

06:49 PM on 04/15/2011

Well said, and I agree. We live in such a reactionary society. Something bad happens, and everyone has these emotional responses and ineffective quick fixes, which do nothing but make lawyers rich and turn us all into a bunch of lazy cowards.

[gemini68]

04:45 PM on 04/15/2011

That's the prosecutor's job dear. Not a litigator's

[econ1]

07:52 PM on 04/15/2011

True...the prosecutor goes after the one at fault. The lawyer anyone with money.

[beingthebest]

11:45 AM on 04/15/2011

I am not placing blame on the victim of the sexual assault, however, life is dangerous. This could have happened anytime, anywhere. Screening people will not make one bit of difference, as many criminals do not have records. Maybe it is their first time, maybe they have never been caught.

[gemini68]

04:48 PM on 04/15/2011

But when you give a company $30 a month for their services is it really so unreasonable to ask them to make sure they are not e-mailing you photos and communications with rapists?

[Milstar]

06:13 PM on 04/15/2011

30 goes to 50, and there is no way for them to prove who you are. I could use a prepaid giftcard to pay, paypal, or some other method that would make verification next to impossible to truely identify who I am.

[beingthebest]

08:14 PM on 04/15/2011

Yes, actually it is. What you are asking is impossible.

[jusathot]

04:41 PM on 04/16/2011

I read about a woman who was introduced to a friend of a friend, and they went out on a date. He raped her--it turns out the friends had not seen each other since high school, and had only got together for a reunion.

Dating can be so dangerous. I cannot imagine dating through the internet, although I have heard wonderful things about it.

[CrisGray]

11:15 AM on 04/15/2011

This is ridiculous! If she met her attacker in a restaurant/bar/cafe, should that establishment be responsible?

[eammon]

08:56 AM on 04/15/2011

Well in defense of the person suing I have yet to hear or read a report she is looking for money but just for match.com to run background checks of its members to ensure they are not sex offenders. I could be wrong but if this is the case i see nothing wrong with the suit. However the website should not be accountable for what happened it was the screwed up individual that allegedly did this not the site.

[zorro869]

06:05 PM on 04/16/2011

She can start her own site if she doesn't like it and see how many people join it. Match.com is a private business and can run it how it likes. No one is going to sue them into "checking bad guys" better. Jeez, can we not ONCE look after ourselves? Why do we need everyone else doing it. Don't date like an idiot. Be careful, don't date, or expect these things as a possibility.

[gemini68]

12:56 PM on 04/18/2011

So now she's an idiot for going on a date? I suppose all single women would classify as idiots by your standards.