Dating website in california


07-Mar-2020 19:25

More generally, if you’re an online vendor hoping to usurp an industry that has extensive offline regulations, you would be well-served to bone up on that regulatory scheme and, if you’re not going to comply with it, develop a clear explanation of why you think it doesn’t apply to you.

– Spark Networks USA, LLC, the parent company of niche dating sites Jdate and Christian Mingle, among others, has agreed to change its website and sales practices to better protect California consumers.

While plaintiff alleged a violation of the statute, he did not tie that violation to his own injury. [statutory standing] requires an injury resulting from a violation.” In the STL cases, plaintiffs alleged a failure of companies to post relevant information to request a privacy policy, but did not necessarily try to request or information or allege that they would have had they known where to direct the query. Similarly, the court says that here plaintiff fails to allege how he cancelled the contract and whether he did so in accordance with the statute. The statute was enacted in 1989 and did not envision online communities, much less smartphone apps. Drafters of every era know that technological advances will proceed apace and that the rules they create will one day apply to all sorts of circumstances they could not possibly envision.’ Under this approach, the statute applies to online sites.

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.

Grindr, an online dating app, allegedly failed to address this in its terms of service.

dating website in california-18

Sex chat web online facebook

e Bay would have been toast if it had to satisfy the statutory regulations applicable to “auctionhouses” because those laws assumed the intermediary took possession of sellers’ goods as part of the transaction. 15, 2015) Related cases: Ninth Circuit Turns Out The Lights on California ‘Shine the Light’ Case Men’s Journal Beats Lawsuit Alleging Violation of California’s “Shine the Light” Privacy Statute — Boorstein v.

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.

This is a perennial cyberlaw issue, or more accurately, a classic “old law and new technology” question.

He sued on behalf of a putative class, alleging violations of California’s Dating Service Contract Act and other claims.

: the court first tackles standing and says that it’s not adequately alleged here.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.