Doe v. Great Expectations

Civil Court of the City of New York · Contracts

ContractsDating Service LawConsumer ProtectionRestitutionsocial referral serviceInternet datingGeneral Business Law § 394-cspecified certain number of social referrals per month

Facts

Defendant sold fee-based services designed to expand clients' social opportunities by posting their videos and profiles on an Internet site so that other clients could review them and choose whether to initiate contact. Doe signed a six-month contract for $1,000, and Roe signed a 36-month contract for $3,790 that was later extended; the printed contract stated defendant would provide zero social referrals and did not promise any referrals per month, though Roe testified she was orally assured 12 introductions over 36 months. The contracts included a three-day cancellation notice but omitted numerous provisions required by the Dating Service Law, and defendant did not provide the separate Dating Service Consumer Bill of Rights. Doe met no one through the service, and Roe received no introductions from the program and met only one person who contacted her after viewing her posted information.

Issue

Whether defendant's Internet-based dating arrangement was a regulated social referral service under General Business Law § 394-c, and if so, whether contracts charging more than $25 without specifying a certain number of social referrals per month and omitting other statutory terms entitled plaintiffs to recover the full amounts they paid as actual damages.

Rule

A service for a fee that provides the means for members of the opposite sex to review each other and make contact for dating or general social interaction is a social referral service under General Business Law § 394-c, even if it operates through the Internet and does not itself directly match members. When such a contract requires payment above $25, it must state a specified certain number of social referrals per month and comply with the statute's required contractual disclosures and rights; absent such compliance, $25 is the maximum lawful charge. A person injured by violation of the statute may recover actual damages, which include restitution of amounts paid in excess of the lawful charge and, where the court finds the consumer would not have entered the unlawful contract had statutory rights been disclosed, the remaining $25 as well.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Manhattan, Lumen Circle LLC charges subscribers $600 for access to a members-only website where clients upload photos and written profiles. Subscribers browse profiles of opposite-sex members and send contact requests directly through the platform, but the company never hand-selects matches.

Under the governing rule, is Lumen Circle most likely subject to New York's social referral service regulation?

Explanation. The majority held that a fee-based dating service is covered when it provides the mechanism for members of the opposite sex to assess each other and make contact for dating or general social interaction. It is enough that the company supplies the means for matching; direct hand-matching is unnecessary. The opinion also stated that use of the Internet does not place the service outside the statute.