Washington Post journo Robert MacMillan writes:
A Virginia General Assembly committee on Monday rejected a bill that would have required online dating companies to display prominent messages on their Web sites and e-mails stating whether they conduct criminal background checks on their users.
Under the proposal, online dating services would have been required to conduct background checks to determine whether users have been convicted of a felony. If a service chose not to conduct the checks, it would have been required to disclose that in at least 12-point type on its Web pages and e-mails.
The Virginia House of Delegates’s Science and Technology Committee voted 9-4 against the bill. “For practical purposes, it’s dead for the rest of the session,” said sponsor Joe May (R-Loudoun).
So far, (Herb) Vest (founder of True.com) has persuaded legislators in several states to sponsor legislation to require sites to say whether they do background checks. The Michigan House of Representatives passed a bill last year, but it died later in the state Senate. A Texas state senator plans to introduce a similar bill before the end of the week, and similar measures are afoot in Ohio and Florida, according to lawmakers and aides involved in drafting the proposals.
Match.com, the nation’s largest online dating service, opposes requiring criminal background and FBI checks, as does the Internet Alliance, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm with a roster of large technology company clients such as Experian, Time Warner, SBC Communications and Comcast.
Kristin Kelly, Match.com’s vice president of love:
Most of Match.com’s 17 million users say that background checks are not a priority, I can assure you that if this is something consumers are interested in, we would have offered it. This is a solution in search of a problem.
Most of the dating industry is against mandatory background checks, although the offline dating companies are quick to point out the have been doing them for years.
The post-iDate Idea OASIS meeting resulted in some membership changes and hopefully a revitalized drive to develop a cohesive voice for the industry. Just a few months ago it was the IADW that was making waves by calling for a industry trade group to represent dating sites, and then SITRAS tried something similar. OASIS seems to have the most traction now, but if you look at their membership directory, many of the tier one sites are not represented. They can afford their own lawyers and lobbyists and don’t see the need to join, yet.
