Online dating site htm
States that have online dating laws relating either to privacy or safety: (or that are in the midst of enacting them) Keep in mind that in nearly all cases the only laws in those few states that even have laws relating to online dating are typically laws to protect data loss or require dating site to add to their TOS (terms of service page) if they perform background checks on all new members.
99.9% of all dating sites do not perform background checks.
Specifically, the court says that, although he cancelled and did not receive a refund, the complaint lacks details about the cancellation. Grindr argued that the statute was prompted by high-pressure in-person sales tactics and vendors’ potential to take undue advantage of consumers. Citing to a California Supreme Court looking at applicability of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act and applicability to download transactions (answer: no), the court says that it should employ a practical, flexible approach: [i]n construing statutes that predate their possible applicability to new technology, courts have not relied on wooden construction of their terms. Grindr also argued that there was an element of the consumer being able to take advantage of the site by using the services and then requesting a full refund, but the court says that the legislature already considered this issue.
The court cites to cases under California’s “Shine the Light” statute and says that there’s no cause of action for a mere failure to comply with the statute. Fidelity to legislative intent does not ‘make it impossible to apply a legal text to technologies that did not exist when the text was created. By providing a full, rather than a pro rata refund, the legislature evinced its intent to place the costs from cooling off/cancellation on the business rather than the consumer.
As in the STL cases, perhaps the court got its radar up when it sensed a lawsuit that was driven by a technical violation of the statute, rather than real economic harm.
Perhaps the court was influenced by the subscription in question (i.e., rather than a year or months-long subscription, the service appeared to bill monthly). Eric’s Comment: The core issue in this case is whether an online service like Grindr qualifies as a “dating service” as defined in a statute written for a different era.Still, the emergence of online dating sites might be a good prompt for the legislature to reconsider the law and ensure its regulatory scope tracks the modern concerns. It’s Illegal For Offline Retailers To Collect Email Addresses–Capp v.