Mary kay sues dating site

Beckman joined the online service in August 2010 and met her "match," Wade Ridley, a month later.

After several online conversations and 10 days of dating, she decided to end the relationship.

Mary Kay Beckman, 50, said the social dating site does not do enough to warn people of the risks of online dating.

Her attorney, Marc Saggese, said that Match.com's advertising lulls "women and men into a false sense of security," reports Huffington Post, issued a statement, calling the lawsuit "absurd." The statement read: "What happened to Mary Kay Beckman is horrible but this lawsuit is absurd.

That, at least in my mind, ends the “Negligence (Failure To Warn),” “Negligence,” and “Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress” claims. §45(a)(1)” claims, which allege in pertinent part: NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 32. W.2d 787, 791 (Tex.1999) — I think the plaintiff will have trouble showing, as a factual matter, that “misrepresented to Plaintiff that the site was safe, consistently lead to loving relationships, and was comprised of individuals seeking healthy relationships.” The site’s user agreement, at least as of now (and I assume it has had something like this for some time), says: YOU ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER MEMBERS. COM CURRENTLY DOES NOT CONDUCT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ITS MEMBERS. COM ALSO DOES NOT INQUIRE INTO THE BACKGROUNDS OF ALL OF ITS MEMBERS OR ATTEMPT TO VERIFY THE STATEMENTS OF ITS MEMBERS. COM MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES AS TO THE CONDUCT OF MEMBERS OR THEIR COMPATIBILITY WITH ANY CURRENT OR FUTURE MEMBERS.

Beckman also alleges “Negligent Misrepresentation” and “Deceptive Trade Practices 15 U. Defendant MATCH failed to exercise reasonable care in communicating to Plaintiff, a paying subscriber to Match.com, the dangers associated with online matchmaking and the potential of meeting an individual whose intentions are not to find a mate, but to find victims to kill or rape. Defendant MATCH misrepresented to Plaintiff that the site was safe, consistently lead to loving relationships, and was comprised of individuals seeking healthy relationships. The law doesn’t take every word crammed into a user agreement to be the gospel, but the practical reality is that doesn’t “misrepresent” that everyone there has good intentions, and the site does take steps to promote dating safety, and includes a link to “Online Dating Safety Tips” from every page, which includes reasonable guidance like “tell a friend” and “stay sober” and the like, as well as a reminder: We don’t conduct criminal background checks on our users, so if you would like more information about someone, we recommend using the Internet and government resources available to everyone.

The many millions of people who have found love on and other online dating sites know how fulfilling it is.

The key legal word here is “duty.” Did have any legal duties to Beckman, and, if so, what were those duties? Putting off the other details for a moment, let’s focus on its claims about a legal duty: Defendant MATCH owed a duty of reasonable care to inform and warn Plaintiff that use of the website could likely be dangerous. Defendant MATCH owed a duty of care to Plaintiff, a paying subscriber to Match.com, to protect her from individuals trolling the website to further criminal activity. Defendant MATCH owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to ensure that Plaintiff was not exposed to dangerous individuals while utilizing Defendant’s matchmaking services. Here’s the complicated problem: is it right to say that has the same legal duty to investigate its subscribers as an employer has to investigate its employees?These conclusions, made in support of her claims for “Negligence (Failure To Warn),” “Negligence,” and “Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress,” echo the language of duty typically found in negligent hiring / retention cases, the same claim at issue in the Annie Le case. That’s essentially what was alleged back in April 2011 by a woman who was raped by a man she met on Notably, Match.com’s User Agreement requires arbitration for “resolving any dispute or claim arising out of or relating to … She didn’t request monetary damages in her lawsuit, though, just an injunction requiring screen subscribers against federal and state sex offender databases. I don’t think we need to answer that complicated question here, however, because of the simple problem: even if we has that legal duty, did not have any way of knowing that Ridley was a psychopath. Defendant MATCH has employed deceptive acts and/or practices directly affecting commerce by way of falsely advertising matchmaking services purporting to only facilitate happy and healthy relationships between its members. Defendant directly misled Plaintiff into believing that a subscription to Defendant’s services would result in a stable and loving relationship with another member, as Defendant’s advertisements portray only loving and healthy relationships. Defendant directly misled Plaintiff into believing that a subscription to Defendant’s services came with associated protections and safeguards that are absent in other internet based forums. §45(a)(1) claim, and for good reason: there’s no private right of action under the statute. See this footnote from a 2009 case collecting court opinions on the issue.She has since had three brain surgeries, as well as “extensive psychological counseling, dental care to repair her jaw, treatment with eye and ear specialists to preserve her sight and hearing, and continued physical therapy.” Ridley was subsequently charged with the murder of another woman. Beckman is certainly a sympathetic plaintiff, and her tragic case of domestic violence is another reminder of why the Violence Against Women Act should be reauthorized.Tort law, however, is not about sympathy, but rather responsibility.

Leave a Reply