Great expectations dating service corporate office street dating revealed review
Accordingly, was the maximum lawful charge for each contract. The posture that defendant's services were not governed by the law in any respect also is demonstrated by the failure to provide to the clients written notice of the mandatory “Dating Service Consumer Bill of Rights” (G. Where, as here, the dating service does not assure it will furnish a client with a specified number of social referrals per month, the service may charge no more than twenty-five dollars (G. The subject dating service contracts assured that there would be no referrals and, even as the oral assurances given to claimant Roe of twelve introductions to be provided over the course of 36 months, failed to commit to any number of introductions in any given month. The required provisions omitted from the contracts establish a failure to comply with G. (granting client “unilateral right to place his or her membership on hold for a period of up to one year”), subdivision 6 (commitment of return to client of “all information and material of a personal or private nature acquired from a purchaser directly or indirectly including but not limited to answers to tests and questionnaires, photographs or background information ․ by certified mail” after conclusion of contract), subdivision 8 (specification of the maximum distance for any face-to-face meeting), and subdivision 8-a (requirement to set forth a policy to be applied if the client “moves to permanently reside at a location outside the service area”). § 394-c[e], “In every social referral service sale or renewal, the seller shall provide each purchaser with a clear and conspicuous, separate written notice, to be known as the ‘Dating Service Consumer Bill of Rights', which shall contain ․ [specified] information”, including notice that if the fee exceeded twenty-five dollars, a minimum number of social referrals must be set out as required by G.
member search: activities exchange: member yellow pages: activity: interest questionnaire: vpo. The mere fact that the basic social introduction process was to be conducted on the Internet in this case does not place the dating service outside the scope of the law. § 394-c[a], “ ‘social referral service’ shall include any service for a fee providing matching of members ․ by use of computer ․ for the purpose of dating and general social contact”). Co.1991, Diamond, J.], member video and biography kept in a library for access by other members, “the distinction between a service that actually matches people for dating and one that provides the means for the match has no meaning in the context of the clear legislative intent to regulate this kind of activity no matter how it is accomplished or implemented”). Because the Dating Service Law is found applicable, the court will review the contract and the service's operation for compliance with the statute. First, there was a massive overcharge by the dating service. § 394-c , “Every contract for social referral service which requires payment by the purchaser of such service of a total amount in excess of twenty-five dollars shall provide that the seller of such service must furnish to the purchaser a specified certain number of social referrals per month”). § 394-c subdivision 3 (contracts above twenty-five dollars to state “specified certain number of social referrals per month”), subdivision 4 (contracts above twenty-five dollars to set forth client has “option to cancel the contract and to receive a refund” if minimum referrals not made), subdivision 5 (undertaking service provider will not reveal “any information and material of a personal or private nature” without client's written consent), subdivision 5-a. Co.1997, Lebedeff, J.], for New York “consumer fraud claims, the Internet medium is essentially irrelevant, for the focus is primarily upon the location” of the relevant actor and whether statute violated). Turning to the issue of damages, the Dating Service Law states that “[a]ny person who has been injured by reason of a violation of this section may bring ․ an action to recover his or her actual damages or fifty dollars whichever is greater” (G. This court had its opportunity to “view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor” (People v.
For the purposes of this decision, the court has substituted the last names of the claimants with Doe and Roe, respectively. A corporate defendant may appear through an authorized representative in Small Claims cases in New York City (N.