The San Francisco Chronicle columnist quotes me on the lawsuit (Jun. 1) filed by Linda Carlson against the online matchmaking service eHarmony.com because it won’t fix her up with a gal. I’m quoted saying that “Diversity in theory is the enemy of diversity in practice” and that although existing dating services catering to lesbians would be far likelier to get the plaintiff what she’s looking for, nowadays “It’s not just that you get the choices you want, but also choices you don’t approve of have to be taken away.” Also, a new nickname for Overlawyered: eDisharmony.com. (At some point the paper will presumably get around to correcting the misrendering of my name.) Among others quoted as commenting on the suit:

Mark Brooks, spokesman for the gay online matchmaking service myPartnerPerfect.com, said of eHarmony, “I think they’re having a bit of an unfair time of it. I think it’s their right to have a niche focus, but they’ve not quite said the right thing, and their underlying tone has riled people up.”

The best line comes when Saunders brings up the earlier case (Mar. 29, 2006) of the attorney who sued eHarmony because it wouldn’t let married guys like him look for dates: “Married and litigious — what a catch, girls.” (“Disharmony: The new tolerance”, Jun. 7). More: Rick Sincere, John Corvino.

A reader writes: “Am I wrong to believe that businesses and consumers are natural enemies in that their economic interests are diametrically opposed?”

Yes, you’re wrong. Transactions don’t occur unless both parties are better off. Businesses thus only profit if they can create consumer surplus—the ability to sell a product at a price that is less than what a consumer values the good or service. Businesses’ interests are thus aligned with consumers who seek consumer surplus. Businesses more often prosper by creating satisfied consumers who become repeat customers who promote the business’s reputation rather than trying to extract every last ounce of wealth from them in a single transaction. This is why brand names and advertising are so important, because they are market signals of long-term commitment to customer satisfaction. It’s not profitable to invest in creating a brand name if one intends on having a bad reputation. (Note the key word “intends” there; no doubt one can intend to have good customer service and fail to achieve it, and I’m looking at you, Comcast.) And one will note that businesses that tend not to have repeat customers or rely on word of mouth are more likely businesses that have reputations of indifference about customer satisfaction: tourist traps, traveling carnivals, etc.

This is why it’s frequently a mistake to characterize pro-plaintiff actions as “pro-consumer” actions. This is not a zero-sum game, and making businesses worse off can quite often also make consumers worse off. Even if consumers come out ahead retroactively in one particular transaction because they got a coupon in a class action that they wouldn’t have otherwise, or because one consumer realized a jackpot award for their misuse of a product, consumers can be losers in the long term in litigation because of higher prices and fewer choices, and this is true even if corporations don’t entirely pass the higher costs on to consumers and force the widows and orphans who are their shareholders to suffer reduced profits as well.

I support reforms that make consumers better off. I oppose the ones that don’t.