<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;match.com&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Oct 2011 04:20:18 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Married Woman Sues Match.com For Using Her Photo In Ads</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/02163716132/married-woman-sues-matchcom-using-her-photo-ads.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/02163716132/married-woman-sues-matchcom-using-her-photo-ads.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The internet sure makes things tricky sometimes.  A married woman named Anne Read Lattimore is <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/28/40111.htm" target="_blank">suing a photographer and two websites</a> concerning a photograph.  Apparently a salon hired a photographer named Roger Kirby to help create a website.  As part of this, Kirby photographed Lattimore after she got a haircut from the salon.  No documents were signed, but Lattimore apparently gave permission to use the photo on the salon's website.  Kirby went further and uploaded the image to Stock.xchng, the free stock photo site owned by Getty Images.  From there a few others downloaded and used it -- including Match.com, who used her image in ads on Facebook, implying she was a member.  As you might guess, this became problematic when people who knew Lattimore -- who, once again, is married -- saw her picture and were confused about her use of Match.com.  In addition, she's suing another site, HealthCentral, which used her photo in a story about coming out as a homosexual.  Lattimore notes that she is neither a homosexual, nor has she come out, as the article and photo imply.
<br /><br />
It seems like her real complaint is with the photographer who uploaded the images, and suggested they were free and available for a variety of uses.  While the license on the stock photo site did say the image could not be used to endorse a product, it's difficult to see how Match.com or HealthCentral could have reasonably known that the photo was of someone who didn't want it used at all.  It seems like attaching liability to those sites would open up huge potential liability for third parties using stock images.  Of course, you could argue that such sites shouldn't use stock images in the first place, but that's a separate issue beyond the legal questions.  In this case, though, she's alleging both defamation and misappropriation of likeness.  The law may be on her side concerning the defamation claim (that may depend on the specific state law), but I do worry about the implications if that's the case.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/02163716132/married-woman-sues-matchcom-using-her-photo-ads.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/02163716132/married-woman-sues-matchcom-using-her-photo-ads.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/02163716132/married-woman-sues-matchcom-using-her-photo-ads.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>false-endorsement</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110929/02163716132</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2011 06:07:47 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Match.com Plans To Ask Users If They're Sexual Predators</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/02041414034/matchcom-plans-to-ask-users-if-theyre-sexual-predators.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/02041414034/matchcom-plans-to-ask-users-if-theyre-sexual-predators.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We noted recently an odd <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/17592913916/woman-sues-matchcom-because-she-was-assaulted-someone-she-met-site.shtml">lawsuit</a> against Match.com from a woman who was sexually assaulted by a man she met via the service.  The company is almost certainly protected via Section 230 from liability, but with a bit of interesting timing, Match.com <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/04/18/in-lawsuits-wake-match-com-to-screen-predator-databases/" target="_blank">announced plans</a> to start screening users' names against a sexual predator database.  This seems like the sort of quickly slapped together ideas that <i>sound good</i> until you think through the details.  And, thankfully, the folks over at the EFF have thought through the details and are pointing out <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/04/sexual-predators-please-check-here-match-com-s" target="_blank">how deeply flawed Match.com's idea is</a>:
<blockquote><i>
There are several glaring flaws with Match.com's plan. For one, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42667308/ns/technology_and_science-science/">Match.com can't prevent sexual assault by screening for sex offenders</a>.  But even if Match.com's goal is merely to check whether users are on a registered sex offender list, rather than to actually prevent assault, Match.com runs into the difficulty that many people who use the site may not use their real names.  And while a portion of Match.com's services require a form of payment, a user looking to conceal her identity might simply use someone else's credit card to purchase a Match.com subscription.  For this plan to work, Match.com will likely need to move to a real name policy, similar to <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/03/09/facebook_real_name_policy_unfair">Facebook's</a>. And often a legal name may not be enough to establish one's identity --  Match.com could well need to collect other data points, like address or phone number, to truly figure out which "John Smith" has registered for their site. (Of note: a quick search through the sex offender registries for the name "John Smith" returns dozens of results.) This will be a change for Match.com: you can currently sign up for an account without providing your real name and there's nothing in the <a href="https://www.match.com/registration/membagr.aspx?lid=4">terms of service</a> that requires an individual to provide her real name.
<br /><br />
And the real flaw in Match.com&rsquo;s plan is the most obvious: criminals who want to use Match.com for nefarious purposes could use a false identity to set up service.  So while law abiding citizens searching for love are handing over loads of personal data to Match.com, those with criminal intent are unlikely to provide real information about themselves when signing up for the site.
</i></blockquote>
The post goes on to highlight numerous other problems, and note that Match.com "doesn't promise to safeguard user data," in the company's privacy policy -- so with any verification process almost certainly involving handing over a lot more data, the whole plan seems dangerous from a privacy perspective:
<blockquote><i>
It's an affront to privacy masquerading as a safety feature.
</i></blockquote>
This sort of thing, by the way, is exactly the kind of thing we'll be discussing at the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110414/02244413889/announcing-our-first-insight-dinner-salon.shtml">Techdirt Insight Dinner salon</a> on May 18th, where one of the key points is to better figure out how companies can and should deal with the data they're collecting, without trampling on privacy issues.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/02041414034/matchcom-plans-to-ask-users-if-theyre-sexual-predators.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/02041414034/matchcom-plans-to-ask-users-if-theyre-sexual-predators.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/02041414034/matchcom-plans-to-ask-users-if-theyre-sexual-predators.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yeah,-that'll-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110426/02041414034</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:23:01 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Woman Sues Match.com Because She Was Assaulted By Someone She Met On Site</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/17592913916/woman-sues-matchcom-because-she-was-assaulted-someone-she-met-site.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/17592913916/woman-sues-matchcom-because-she-was-assaulted-someone-she-met-site.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050228/1039229.shtml">get laws passed</a> 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 <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20054184-71.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20&#038;dlvrit=142337" target="_blank">filed against Match.com by a woman, who claims she was sexually assaulted</a> by a man she met on the site.  This is, of course, horrible.  But the fault lies with the guy, not with Match.com
<br /><br />
In 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/17592913916/woman-sues-matchcom-because-she-was-assaulted-someone-she-met-site.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/17592913916/woman-sues-matchcom-because-she-was-assaulted-someone-she-met-site.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/17592913916/woman-sues-matchcom-because-she-was-assaulted-someone-she-met-site.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>misplaced-liability</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110415/17592913916</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:53:39 PST</pubDate>
<title>Match.com Sued Over Dead/Fake Profiles</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/09203212668/matchcom-sued-over-deadfake-profiles.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/09203212668/matchcom-sued-over-deadfake-profiles.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year, dating site Match.com <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100428/1719009230.shtml">threatened some rivals</a>, saying that the numbers they put out concerning marketing probably couldn't be supported, and ordering them to cease and desist with misleading claims.  Of course, all that really did was make a lot of people turn around and look more closely at Match.com's own claims, which seemed only fair.  I have no idea if this latest story is a result of some of that scrutiny, but a <a href="http://www.cio.com/article/651514/Match.Com_Sued_By_Sour_Love_Seekers" target="_blank">class action lawsuit has been filed against Match.com</a> by users of the service who claimed that the company was quite misleading with its own stats.  Of specific concern is the actual number of users touted by Match, who (the plaintiffs claim) leaves "dead" accounts on the system just so it can boost its numbers.  Also, there are claims that many of the profiles are fakes, using images of porn actresses, models, or people from other dating sites (though, if accurate, this could just be the work of spammers, rather than Match itself). Separately, there are claims that just as accounts are about to expire, members get a notice that someone wants to contact them -- but they have to renew their subscription to respond.  Except, when they do renew, it turns out that the person who wanted to contact them has disappeared.  All that does seem a bit sneaky, if true.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/09203212668/matchcom-sued-over-deadfake-profiles.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/09203212668/matchcom-sued-over-deadfake-profiles.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/09203212668/matchcom-sued-over-deadfake-profiles.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-only-need-to-find-one</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110114/09203212668</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:21:59 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Match.com Upset That Other Dating Sites Cite Stats About Themselves, Like It Does</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100428/1719009230.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100428/1719009230.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Online dating site Match.com <a href="http://gigaom.com/2010/04/28/match-com-picks-fight-with-competitor-plenty-of-fish/">sent a letter from its lawyer</a> to rival Plentyoffish.com last week, accusing it of citing statistics about itself and its members (like the fact that they'll go on 18 million dates this year) that Match says can't be supported. It then went on to "demand that [Plentyoffish] immediately cease and desist"... or provide Match with user data to back them up. Ever the friendly rival, Match's lawyer said the company would be glad to sign a confidentiality agreement before taking a gander and Plentyoffish's proprietary data. POF's founder basically told Match <a href="http://plentyoffish.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/match-com-no-longer-top-dating-site-sends-in-the-lawyers/">to get lost</a>, highlighting several figures that Match touts about its service, including one saying that an average of nearly 1000 people per day get married after first meeting on Match. To be honest, a lot of the figures cited by both parties are a little hard to believe, and sound like little more than attempts by the sites to sell <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20060301/1348203.shtml">hope</a> to prospective users. But starting a fight over a rival's claims -- when all that's likely to do is call attention to your own -- may not be the wisest move for anybody in the online dating business.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100428/1719009230.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100428/1719009230.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100428/1719009230.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>less-wrong</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100428/1719009230</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>