In 2010, a class action lawsuit accused match.com of breaching contracts, however, the website can exhale for now. Plaintiffs claim that it is the duty of website administrators to filter through memberships in order to avoid misleading consumers. They were misled to believe there was a pool of millions of subscribers even though half were fake, inactive, or scammers.
Recently, the presiding U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay dismissed most of the lawsuit. The agreements, “in no way requires Match.com to police, vet, update the website content.” The lawsuit filed in U.S. District court in Texas alleges that match.com used “deceptive trade practices” described under Texas Law. A spokesperson for the website said it was pleased with the ruling, and said the allegations were “unfounded.”
The judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claim of breach of contract. He gave the plaintiffs until August 27, 2012, to explain why he should not also dismiss the claims of deceptive trade practices. Otherwise, he would dismiss that claim, as well.
Should websites hold the responsibility to constantly monitor their members for fake, inactive, or spamming profiles?