Doe v. Great Expectations
809 NYS2d 819, 10 Misc. 3d 618 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An internet-based social referral service is subject to New York's Dating Service Law (General Business Law § 394-c). A contract that violates the law's pricing and disclosure requirements entitles the consumer to a full refund, as the entire fee paid constitutes "actual damages" when the consumer would not have entered the contract had they been aware of their statutory rights.
Facts:
- Claimant Doe entered into a six-month contract with Great Expectations, an internet-based social referral service, and paid $1,000.
- Claimant Roe entered into a 36-month contract with Great Expectations and paid $3,790, with an oral assurance of 12 total introductions.
- The service involved posting a client's video and profile on a website where other clients could review them and initiate contact.
- The standard form contracts used by Great Expectations explicitly stated that the company would provide "zero number of social referrals."
- Neither contract guaranteed a specified number of social referrals per month.
- The contracts did not contain numerous mandatory provisions required by New York's Dating Service Law, including privacy protections, membership hold options, and a "Dating Service Consumer Bill of Rights."
- Doe met no one through the service, while Roe was approached by only one person after he saw her profile.
Procedural Posture:
- Claimant Doe filed a small claims action against Great Expectations in the New York City Civil Court to recover $1,000.
- Claimant Roe filed a separate small claims action against Great Expectations in the New York City Civil Court to recover $3,790.
- The court consolidated the two similar cases for a single decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contract with an internet-based social referral service that fails to guarantee a specific number of monthly referrals and omits mandatory consumer protections violate New York's Dating Service Law (General Business Law § 394-c), entitling the clients to a full refund of all fees paid?
Opinions:
Majority - Lebedeff, J.
Yes. A contract with an internet-based social referral service that fails to guarantee monthly referrals and omits mandatory consumer protections violates New York's Dating Service Law, entitling the clients to a full refund. The court reasoned that the Dating Service Law explicitly applies to services using computers and covers services that provide the 'means for matching,' not just those that actively make introductions. Because the contracts did not guarantee a 'specified certain number of social referrals per month,' the maximum lawful fee under General Business Law § 394-c(3) was $25. The contracts not only constituted a massive overcharge but also violated nearly every other mandate of the statute, including the critical requirement to provide consumers with a 'Dating Service Consumer Bill of Rights.' The court found that the 'actual damages' recoverable under the statute include the entire fee paid, as the claimants would not have entered into the illegal contracts had they been properly informed of their rights.
Analysis:
This decision affirms the application of pre-internet era consumer protection statutes to modern online businesses, establishing that the medium used to deliver a service does not create an exception to regulation. It provides a strong deterrent against non-compliance by interpreting "actual damages" broadly to permit a full restitutionary refund for contracts that fundamentally disregard the law's requirements. The case solidifies the principle that service providers cannot evade statutory obligations by structuring their offerings to merely provide a platform for interaction rather than actively making matches.
