Match.com Gets Sued by a Former Client

A resident of New York and his lawyer filed a claim against Match.com for deceptive marketing practices. Seann McGinn is seeking damages for the pain caused by the responses he did not get.

So how does this make sense? McGinn argues that since Match.com allows users to create profiles for free, chock full of enticing pictures and descriptions of things such as hobbies or favorite foods, but does not allow these frugal users to contact or reply to any paying users communications, that many people are feeling the heartache of rejection when they really shouldn’t be.

According to Reuters, the suit states, “”Because the writer has no way of knowing this, he or she may experience profound personal anguish, suffering which is easily preventable by Match.”

 

The case has a flavoring of dismissability to it, yet it is kind of a novel idea. Do internet-dating sites have a duty of care to provide clients with profile indicators? A simple addition to their already robust websites seems a trifle bit less than too much to ask for. For instance, those users who have yet to pay their dues could have tiny Yield signs next to their profile pictures, whereas paying members would have a smiley emote next to theirs. This would clear up any confusion and gratuitous rejection (I assume members get enough already). It would be nice to know if debbie47 was blowing you off or simply too fiscally reserved to purchase the monthly membership.

Many have experienced the cold shower that is rejection. To dismiss Mr. McGinn’s claims outright would not do him and many others justice. After doing a bit of research by getting my own Match.com account, it is obvious that one thing they are good at is refining searches. What harm would one more checkbox filter pose? Side note: perhaps another filter for user ids would be appropriate. After selecting that I was interested in meeting women 60-100, Match.com still allowed the id ‘seniorabuser’ to be created.