skip to content »

Online dating site in california

On the i site, Farook described himself as a 22-year-old Muslim male living in Riverside, California, who is from a “religious but modern family of 4 – 2 girls, 2 boys” and worked for the county as a health, safety and environmental inspector.He added that he enjoyed working on vintage and modern cars, and read religious books while enjoying eating out sometimes.

online dating site in california-21online dating site in california-47online dating site in california-83

That California regulates dating service contracts specifically came as news to me, as well as I’m guessing to others.Here, Grindr had good policy arguments that the assumptions embedded into a statute governing high-pressure face-to-face sales should not apply to an online-only process.Still, it had no good arguments to bypass the statute’s plain language.Grindr, an online dating app, allegedly failed to address this in its terms of service.A plaintiff signed up for Grindr Xtra (the monthly fee-based version of its site), cancelled and did not receive a full refund (for the remainder of the month).California attracts a wide variety of people from all walks of life.

A huge proportion of these people are single and looking for friendship and romance, and for widows and widowers living in California, it can sometimes prove challenging to meet someone who has shared a similar experience as your own and who also lives in the same part of town.

Farook, 28, had a registered profile on a site called i, a “one stop source for Indian matrimonial and dating services,” according to the website.

He was also registered on, a dating site that is the “first and only legal marriage service provider in UAE” (United Arab Emirates), according to the website description.

While plaintiff alleged a violation of the statute, he did not tie that violation to his own injury. [statutory standing] requires an injury resulting from a violation.” In the STL cases, plaintiffs alleged a failure of companies to post relevant information to request a privacy policy, but did not necessarily try to request or information or allege that they would have had they known where to direct the query. Similarly, the court says that here plaintiff fails to allege how he cancelled the contract and whether he did so in accordance with the statute. The statute was enacted in 1989 and did not envision online communities, much less smartphone apps. Drafters of every era know that technological advances will proceed apace and that the rules they create will one day apply to all sorts of circumstances they could not possibly envision.’ Under this approach, the statute applies to online sites.

Specifically, the court says that, although he cancelled and did not receive a refund, the complaint lacks details about the cancellation. Grindr argued that the statute was prompted by high-pressure in-person sales tactics and vendors’ potential to take undue advantage of consumers. Citing to a California Supreme Court looking at applicability of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act and applicability to download transactions (answer: no), the court says that it should employ a practical, flexible approach: [i]n construing statutes that predate their possible applicability to new technology, courts have not relied on wooden construction of their terms. Grindr also argued that there was an element of the consumer being able to take advantage of the site by using the services and then requesting a full refund, but the court says that the legislature already considered this issue.

California has a statute applicable to dating contracts that gives consumers the right to cancel within 3 days of signing up.