>
Looking for love on the internet? Exercise appropriate caution, as Mary Kay Beckman learned the hard way. Beckman created a profile on Match.com and hooked up with a man who turned out to be the date from hell. When Beckman decided to end things after a few meetings, she received 'threatening and harassing text messages' from said date, who then subjected her to a 'brutal attack'. Beckman sued the online dating platform which had occasioned her unhappy meeting: Beckman v Match.com (DC Nev, 31 May 2013).
Her claim was dismissed. Federal legislation on
deceptive trade practices could not provide the basis for a
negligence claim. The Communications Decency Act (CDA)
didn't work either, because it provides immunity to providers
of interactive computer services who enable users like Beckman and
her attacker to publish information. As a result, Match.com could
not be liable for any emotional distress resulting from the
publication of a user's personal info because it had not
intentionally inflicted harm or been reckless as to the
consequences of its actions. Claims based on failure to warn of the
risks of meeting someone online or negligent misrepresentation also
failed: the Nevada court held that Match.com could invoke CDA
immunity here as well, but the underlying message is that Match.com
owed Beckman no duty, and that she really ought to have known
better.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
