Woman Sues Match.com After Her Date Allegedly Raped Her

More problems for Match.com. This time it's a Hollywood executive, identified only as Jane Doe, who says a man she met through Match sexually assaulted her. She has filed suit seeking an injunction to bar the dating site from signing up any more members until it can accurately screen them for sexual predators.

It's just the latest in a series of suits and complaints from consumers who had experiences on Match.com that didn't quite match their expectations.

In February, a class action suit in San Francisco claimed Match.com is “little more than a scheme” to bilk consumers and that more than 60 percent of the profiles on the dating site are “either inactive former users or fake or fraudulently posted by scammers and others.” A similar case was filed in Dallas in January.

The San Francisco suit claims that many of the photos attached to profiles on Match.com are of “pornographic actresses and models, seemingly stolen from independent websites.”

Because of “the danger associated with Match allowing male registered sexual predators to become its members,” the Jane Doe complaint says, the court should issue an injunction compelling it “to institute basic inexpensive screening processes.”

Doe said in the suit that after her date attacked her, she went online and learned he had six convictions for sexual battery.

In its Terms of Use, Match.com limits its liability and says that members are “solely responsible” for their interactions with other members.

“You understand that Match.com does not in any way screen its members, nor does Match.com inquire into the backgrounds of its members or attempt to verify the statements of its members,” the terms state.

But Doe says in her suit that the clause is “one-sided” and should be invalidated. Her attorneys would be expected to argue that the limitations do not extend to negligence.

Doe also alleges that Match.com “breached its duty to provide services” under California's Consumer Protection Act because, despite being aware that sexual predators use the service, it has not adopted “a basic screening process that disqualifies from membership anyone who has a documented history of sexual assault.”

“As a result of this breach, defendant exposes numerous members of its dating service to a grave risk of harm,” the suit says.

On the other hand, Match.com would be expected to argue that its Terms of Use very clearly state that users are not vetted and that customers should exercise their own due diligence. If Jane Doe, for example, had checked her date's background before she went out with him, instead of afterwards, the alleged injury would presumably have been avoided.

Doe has said that she did not know her date's last name when she agreed to go out with him. However, read far enough through her complaint and one discovers that the alleged rape occurred on the second date she had with the gentleman in question.

The law is still evolving in this area. An Ohio federal judge upheld a waiver of liability provision in the case of a man who sued an online adult dating service for failing to verify that all its members were over the age of 18.

“[G]iven the nature of Defendants' adult dating website (i.e., SexSearch cannot control its member's actions when they meet), the extent of potential liability is unpredictable and potentially astronomical,” U.S. District Judge Jack Zouhary said in a 2007 case.