Woman Sues Match.com Because She Was Assaulted By Someone She Met On Site
from the misplaced-liability dept
A few years back, there was an online dating site, whose main differentiator was that it would supposedly do background checks on anyone who joined. That company had a habit of not just playing up this differentiator, but of trying to get laws passed that would make life difficult for other dating sites -- such as forcing them to put a warning on every page reading: "WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A FELONY-CONVICTION SEARCH OR FBI SEARCH ON THIS INDIVIDUAL." Thankfully, it doesn't seem like those lobbying efforts have gotten very far, but I'm reminded of this because of a new lawsuit filed against Match.com by a woman, who claims she was sexually assaulted by a man she met on the site. This is, of course, horrible. But the fault lies with the guy, not with Match.comIn fact, the whole thing seems suspiciously similar to those old attempts to get such laws passed, in that the woman isn't asking for monetary damages, but to require Match.com to run background checks on everyone. Of course, this is a liability question and it's difficult to see how Match.com could or should be liable here. Obviously, when you meet someone you don't know, there are risks, but pinning the liability on the tool people use to meet seems quite problematic.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: liability, third party liability
Companies: match.com
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So many news stories explain how its not your fault -
Your kid is fat, its McDonalds fault not yours for never telling your kid no or giving him a freaking piece of fruit.
Your kid acts out using a stick as a gun! Its the fault of video games, which never touches on how your kid got $50-60 to buy it.
Your kid saw a boob in a movie, now he will be a sexual predator!
When she looses I hope that no "rights" groups get up in arms about it being unfair, and rather invest some of that coverage in teaching people how to deal with strangers 101.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about the police instead of lawyers ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I only ever answered with "Technically not, the bodies were never found." or something similar. I couldn't believe how trusting some of the girls were of a complete stranger.
I can't believe one of them even let me take her up on a mountain drive, for champagne in the woods at midnight. All on a first date!
If I was a bad person, there is no way they would have found the body...
Awesome night though ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Government is your friend, the checks in the mail, and nah I won't *COUGH* in your mouth?
:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The victim stated the bar should have conducted extensive background checks including taking DNA samples and fingerprints to ensure the random male was not a sexual predator.
An outspoken attorney general has proposed an immediate change to the law requiring all social gatherings of more than one person be subjected to a three factor screening. This will include:
DNA sampling
Iris scanning
Anal probing
When questioned on the anal probing the attorney general stated this was imperative because many sexual predators are also terrorists and often hide liquids in their anuses for use in bomb making.
The TSA has applauded the proposed changes and have volunteered to oversee all such screening, saying "we can kill two birds with one anal probing".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
weddings (you must now screen your guests)
out walking your dog (parks must now have a security screen on the gate)
supermarkets (loyalty cards to now work with DHS)
the school gate (school districts in league with TSA)
the beach
public streets
The perp, meanwhile, will sue match.com for hooking him up with someone he later went on to assault, claiming "they should have prevented this, it has ruined my life".
Match.com will sue google for lowering everyone's expectations of what things cost on the internet making it unfeasible for them to screen everyone.
Lawyers will sue CNN for publicising the event thus reducing the likelihood of lucrative repeat events.
Microsoft will unearth an obscure patent related to an algorithm for choosing a victim and sue the perp.
MPAA will claim the whole incident was the plot of some movie noone ever watched and sue everyone for copyright.
SCO will try to claim Match.com is somehow based on an
infringing version of Linux.
TAM will claim that Mike Masnick said online dating should be free.
Various senators will try and pass a "Clear Tubes Act" written by lobbyists which will allow online dating packets to be prioritised.
Some college pal of the match.com founder will unearth a restauraunt napkin on which supposedly a deal was signed to give him half the company.
Jonathon Tasini will claim that he posted stuff in his Match.com profile without payment and has just realised match.com are making money and hence some it should be his.
And (to quote Del Amitri) we'll all be lonely tonight, and lonely tomorrow... (see link above)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This just in!
Women sues the City of Denver because she was assaulted by someone she met in Denver.
Women sues restaurant because someone she was assaulted by took her there.
Women sues planet Earth because she was assaulted by someone from there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Rape is never the victim's fault. On the other side of the coin, we all have some amount of personal responsibility to not head to a secluded location with a strange dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
She then apparently went online and discovered that he had several previous convictions for sexual battery.
If she did this after, she could have done it before hand. We shouldn't have to do that, but people are creepy these days. I wouldn't take DH on a date with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was going to put that into the post... but I wasn't entirely sure that's true. I thought Section 230 doesn't cover criminal activity (only civil), and would this be considered criminal activity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bars tend not to require you to sign up to use their services. I'm not saying the comparison doesn't have merit, but a bar is not very similar to a dating site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reversal!
What I'm getting at is are the strong opinions coming from the fact that this was a sexual assault or from the belief that Match.com should do backgroung checks on everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reversal!
I'm struggling to see your point here. Theft isn't remotely similar to assault apart from also being a crime. Also, what is the point of reversing genders in your example? I only ask because you specifically refer to doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reversal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry to inject a bit of logic
It seems to me that the case fails right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry to inject a bit of logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry to inject a bit of logic
I don't see a down side to the site being pro active about informing users of risks involved (although no where near to the extent referenced in the article), but I agree entirely with your point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sorry to inject a bit of logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sorry to inject a bit of logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's Think a Little Deeper
And seriously, it's easy to point out the woman's fault for only researching the man's past after the crime, but by the same token Match.com should have easily been able to screen in the same way beforehand. They took his credit card info and verified that, at which point it's quite easy to run a background check against police blotters, which are all public. Employers do criminal background checks every single day, and that's for people they'll most likely deal with on a much less intimate level.
If Match.com has algorithms that can find "the one" for you, then I have to believe it wouldn't be much more difficult to write an algorithm to scrape publicly available criminal records. Hell, they could be helping track down fugitives in this manner. Someone tries to register and up pops an outstanding warrant? Turn it over to the authorities. Match.com would be heroes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]