What’s worse than an Imaginary girlfriend?
A lawsuit was filed earlier this month in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles by plaintiff Matthew Evans, who contends he went out with a woman he met through the site who turned out to be nothing more than “date bait” working for the company.
The relationship went nowhere, according to his suit. Evans says Match set up the date for him because it wanted to keep him from pulling the plug on his subscription and was hoping he’d tell other potential members about the attractive woman he met through the service.
On the one hand, this business practice seems clearly wrong. On the other hand, it raises the question of just what these paid subscribers are entitled to. There’s no guarantee that they’ll meet someone they like, fall in love, and live happily ever after, is there? Are they entitled to genuine “market reactions” to their datability — whatever those reactions might be?
Follow up questions include: Would a single “real” bad date really be better than two or three pleasant enough “fake” dates? Is this really so much worse than “real” dating using a paid “wingman”? And is Match.com’s sham date worse than going on a “real” date because one’s parents or friends pester one to do so, rather than out of actual romantic interest in the person dated? The ethical boundaries here seem to be not so clearly defined.