Civil Code and Online Dating Services – What is the Common Factor?

E-Harmony, an online match making service, founded in 2000, has been the victim of a civil lawsuit filed by a soon-to-be divorcee.

A California resident, the gentleman has filed a civil lawsuit against the match making giant citing discrimination pursuant to Section 51 of the California Civil Code. The plaintiff alleges he was denied access to the match making services based on his marital status of “separated”. Under this allegation, the plaintiff states, upon completion of the questionaaire, he was denied access to the matchmaking services based on his marital status but was encouraged to return when his divorce was final? Under the Unruh Act, businesses are prohibited from arbitrary discriminatory practices. Is this arbitrary? Does it meet the definition of discrimination? The plaintiff thinks so and, as such, has requested damages in the amount of $1200.00.

E-Harmony, founded by Dr. Neil Clark Warren initially began as a web site offering relationship and marriage counseling advice. As traffic to the site proliferated, Dr. Warren developed his 29 Dimension Compatibility Matching System which provides for a series of questions based on an individual’s character, values, morals and intellect,etc.. It is the belief of Dr. Warren that this compatability matching system is the key to finding a soul mate. And his theory may be correct. With a current membership of over 5 million members, E-Harmony claims to have more marriages per match than any other dating service; approximately 33,000 annually. Additionally, the compatibility program is soon to be patented.

The question of discrimination, based on Section 51 of the California Civil Code, may not apply to this scenario. This is especially true if E-Harmony specifically precludes anyone from services unless single, divorced or widowed. It is believed the civil courts would agree this is not an “arbitrary” discrimination. With many other dating services available, one would speculate as to why the plaintiff, in this case, didn’t pursue another avenue for dating pending finalization of his divorce. Out of respect for his spouse and a potential life partner, self respect and his own arbitrary discrimination may have saved the plaintiff the time and “pain” associated with completing the matchmaking compatability profile only to learn he was not yet eligible for the program.

And $1200.00 in damages? E-Harmony, Match.com and many other dating services are becoming routine targets of lawsuits citing allegations from discrimination to falsified membership profiles and inflated membership. However, a lawsuit citing discrimination will be the first in California for the match making giant. As testimony is revealed so will the details of the allegations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


nine − = 7