In Los Angeles, a woman “who wants to remain anonymous” has sued Match.com saying that a man she met on the service raped her on their second date and that it has a legal responsibility to screen participants more carefully. The man in the case, who is awaiting trial, has implied through a lawyer that contact was consensual. [NBC Los Angeles via TortsProf, Amy Alkon]
3 Comments
On Fox, Judge Napolitano didn’t have a very good view of this lawsuit, saying that it could only succeed if the plaintiff can prove that it is expected that sexual predators normally use match.com. But I have another problem with it – there’s nothing illegal about former sex offenders seeking adult romantic partners (assuming they have already paid their debt to society). So what could match.com do? Bar former sex offenders from the site for doing something perfectly legal?
Also, the sex offender registry is online anyway, so if she had his name, she could have done her own homework.
” So what could match.com do? Bar former sex offenders from the site for doing something perfectly legal? ”
The only thing they can do is stop their service. Someone’s who’s never been convicted or accused of anything can still commit a crime, so whatever they do, whomever they ban, they’re still liable to let someone intending rape (or even not intending rape but later accused of it by a bitch trying to make a quick buck over his head) sign up.
J.T., using tht logic…
…”How do you prove a negative?”
By your reasoning, these sites should automatically assume that any male who signs up is either a potential rapist, or has raped/assaulted in their past. By that definition, no males could sign up for these sites, and many would go out of business.
Seems to me, on a second date, that caveat emptor should rule.