## Facts

- Great Expectations, an Internet-based dating service, charged members fees to post/view profiles and videos and to initiate contact with other members for dating and social interaction.
- Jennifer Doe and Debra Roe each entered written membership contracts on the company’s forms.
- Doe paid $1,000 for a six-month membership; Roe paid $3,790 for a 36-month membership.
- Each contract stated the company would provide “zero” social referrals and that the member did not expect any social referrals.
- Roe’s contract included a handwritten note referencing an oral promise of introductions to twelve people, but she met only one person who contacted her after viewing her posted information; Doe met no one through the service.
- Doe and Roe sued in New York Civil Court seeking return of the amounts paid under New York’s Dating Services Law, General Business Law (GBL) § 394-c.

## Issues

1. Whether an Internet-based dating platform that enables members to view profiles and contact each other is a “social referral service” subject to GBL § 394-c.
2. Whether charging more than $25 violates GBL § 394-c when the contract does not guarantee a minimum number of social referrals per month and instead promises “zero” referrals.
3. Whether the proper remedy for the statutory violation is full restitution of the membership fees paid.

## Decision

- The court issued a consolidated decision resolving both actions.
- The court held the service fell within GBL § 394-c’s definition of a regulated “social referral service,” even if the company primarily supplied the means for members to match rather than actively matching them.
- The court found the defendant violated GBL § 394-c by charging fees exceeding $25 where the contracts did not guarantee a minimum number of social referrals per month and expressly promised “zero” referrals.
- The court awarded full restitution: $1,000 to Doe and $3,790 to Roe.

## Legal Principles

- Under GBL § 394-c, a “social referral service” includes any fee-based service providing matching “by use of computer or any other means” for dating and general social contact.
- The statute applies based on the substance of the service; supplying a mechanism for members to identify and contact potential dates can constitute regulated “matching,” even without company-generated introductions.
- When a dating service does not guarantee a minimum number of social referrals per month, GBL § 394-c limits the permissible charge for social referral services to $25.
- An Internet-based delivery method does not exempt a dating service from coverage when the service functionally resembles regulated referral services and the transactions have a sufficient New York nexus.
- A contract structure and pricing that conflict with the statutory fee cap can support rescission-type relief and restitution of amounts paid.

## Conclusion

The court treated an Internet-based dating platform as a regulated social referral service under GBL § 394-c and held that contracts promising “zero” referrals triggered the statute’s $25 fee cap; because the defendant charged far more, the court ordered full refunds to both plaintiffs.


Doe v. Great Expectations, 10 Misc. 3d 618, 809 N.Y.S.2d 819 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2005)