Businessweek has an article on True.com legislation.
Match.com, Yahoo (YHOO ), Microsoft (MSFT ), and many others argue that Vest is playing up problems that don’t exist. They contend that online dating is safer than, say, meeting someone in a bar and that they encourage their members to use common sense before setting up a meeting or exchanging personal information. The companies also point out that these laws wouldn’t apply to similar dating services in the offline world, making such legislation unfair and open to legal challenges.
Match.com spokeswoman Kristen Kelly says that tiny True.com poses little threat to her company.
It’s possible Match.com already meets the stipulations of the Florida bill, since it advises users that it doesn’t do background checks. Fighting the issue, she says, is a matter of principle.
Related posts:
{ 3 comments }
When are you going to get over the fact that True.com is not that small. I mean 3-4 million members in less than a year… if they were an adult site – then maybe I could shrug it off – but thats not exactly “tiny”.
I know I have had to change a bit about my online advertising techniques simply because I can’t afford to pay out what they are.
I am a bit worried about the legislation – if it passes. But to be honest, I have to do whats right by the customer. If that many people are joining their site, knowing what theyre getting into; then things may change.
They were late to the game, but I have to say I am a bit jealous of all the media attention they have ganered of late.
You left out the interesting part on page 2… Looks like he is going to do some mud slinging with eharmony and perfect match.
********************
If background checks do become de rigueur in online dating, don’t expect Vest to rest there — he’s already planning to take on sites that use the word “scientific” to describe their matching techniques. He argues that scientific implies independent verification, and many of these sites’ quizzes and tests haven’t been subject to such review.
True does not have 4 million members. As they say, all press is good press but in this case I’m not so sure. Can you imagine passing yet another round of legislation prohibiting sites from using the word scientific?
Comments on this entry are closed.