Great expectations dating service out business
Dissatisfied with the program’s performance, plaintiffs brought suit before New York Civil Court Judge Diane Lebedeff. 1994, Greenfield, J] member profile, photos and video maintained at company’s center for perusal by other members, such services were covered by statute because “It does not matter whether defendant actually matches its members.
The 53-year-old Burnsville woman wound up paying ,705 for a three-year membership with the company, which promises to screen potential partners and provide other services to help members find the right person.Accordingly, was the maximum lawful charge for each contract. In addition, the Court found that the form contract provided by defendant violated numerous provisions of the Dating Services Law concerning terms that must be contained in such contracts, including provisions providing for the return of personal information after the conclusion of the contract. As a result, the Court awarded each client damages in an amount equal to the payments they made to Great Expectations, or 00 and 90 respectively.In reaching this result, the Court found that the Dating Services Law applied to Great Expectations even though it only provided the means, via the Internet, for clients to contact each other, but apparently did not actually refer clients to one another.