overview
statistics
hearts
law
related
Guides:
Consumers
& Trust
related
Profiles:
Social
Software
Vigilantes
Defamation
Identity
Theft
Cyberstalking
Forgery &
Forensics
Adult
Content
|
law, love and larceny
This page considers the dark side of online matchmaking.
It covers -
 the
dark side
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.
trafficking
It is perhaps inevitable that some observers have noted
use of the net for a nastier form of lonely hearts interaction
- online mail order brides and trafficking in women or
minors.
An overview of some issues is provided in the sobering
US report to Congress on International Matchmaking
Organisations (PDF).
There is a less nuanced view in papers by Donna Hughes
- whose claims are noted in the Censorship
Guide on this site - on Use of New Communications
and Information Technologies for Exploitation of Women
and Children (PDF)
and Welcome to the Rape Camp: Trafficking, Prostitution
& the Internet in Cambodia (PDF).
They are complemented in Riitta Vartti's 2001 paper
German Matchmaking Websites: Online Trafficking in
Women? A perspective is provided by Dennis Altman's
Global Sex (Chicago: Uni of Chicago Press 2001).
In the US the Mail Order Bride Business Act of 2005 (MOBBA)
seeks to regulate commercial mail-order bride services,
with an emphasis on protecting foreign women from being
abused, held without their consent or stalked. It has
been criticised by 'wife-shoppers' who argue that they
should not be obligated to disclose personal information
such as past marriages, offspring or alcohol and drug-related
offences.
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 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, 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.
::
|
|
