California dating laws examples of great headlines for dating sites
Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, and everyone realized than an online auction service like e Bay is unquestionably different than a statutorily regulated “auctionhouse.” It’s a good cautionary tale for the regulation of any online marketplace seeking to disrupt traditional offline intermediaries governed by different rules because the laws of physics applicable to the offline world are, in fact, different online. Men’s Journal Bad Idea: Overdisclosing People’s Positive STD Status–Doe v.
I understand why the court was less charitable to Grindr here. Successfulmatch 9th Circuit Says Plaintiff Had Standing to Sue Spokeo for Fair Credit Reporting Violations Is Sacramento The World’s Capital of Internet Privacy Regulation?
Grindr, an online dating app, allegedly failed to address this in its terms of service.
Companies must advise clients of this and provide a cancellation mechanism and a full refund.Here, Grindr had good policy arguments that the assumptions embedded into a statute governing high-pressure face-to-face sales should not apply to an online-only process.Still, it had no good arguments to bypass the statute’s plain language.The court cites to cases under California’s “Shine the Light” statute and says that there’s no cause of action for a mere failure to comply with the statute. Fidelity to legislative intent does not ‘make it impossible to apply a legal text to technologies that did not exist when the text was created. By providing a full, rather than a pro rata refund, the legislature evinced its intent to place the costs from cooling off/cancellation on the business rather than the consumer.
The court dismisses the UCL claim as the plaintiff did not offer substantive arguments in response to Grindr’s arguments.I disagree a little with Venkat about the likelihood Grindr was blindsided by this law. Nordstrom California Supreme Court: Retail Privacy Statute Doesn’t Apply to Download Transactions – Apple v Superior Court (Krescent) CA Court Confirms that Pineda v Williams-Sonoma (the Zip-Code-as-PII Case) Applies Retrospectively — Dardarian v.