Doe 1 v. Successfulmatch.com
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140531
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 (Canada) and Jane Doe 2 (Washington) sued SuccessfulMatch.com (operator of PositiveSingles.com) for UCL and CLRA violations, alleging deceptive privacy representations and undisclosed sharing of user profiles with a network of affiliate dating sites.
- PositiveSingles.com marketed itself as "100% Confidential" and "Totally Free to Place a Fully Anonymous Profile," while its Terms of Service stated profiles "may be shared with other sites within the SuccessfulMatch network."
- SuccessfulMatch runs a central membership database used by many affiliate/white‑label sites (e.g., niche STD/HIV dating sites), so a profile created on PositiveSingles.com could appear on affiliate sites.
- Plaintiffs say SuccessfulMatch concealed the number and nature of affiliate sites, inducing them to pay for memberships they would not have bought if they knew profiles would be broadly shared; alleged payments of $179.85 and $527.45.
- District court previously dismissed complaint for lack of particularity with leave to amend; Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint; Defendant moved to dismiss again. Court granted dismissal without prejudice for failure to satisfy Rule 9(b) but found UCL/CLRA claims plausible under Rule 8.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliance (UCL/CLRA) | Plaintiffs relied on PositiveSingles.com privacy statements and would not have paid if they knew profiles would be widely shared. | Terms of Service disclosed profile sharing; no duty to disclose more; statements were puffery; CalOPPA safe harbor. | Court: Plaintiffs plausibly allege deception and duty to disclose (exclusive knowledge, misleading partial statements); whether reasonable consumer deceived is a fact issue — not resolved on motion to dismiss. |
| Duty to disclose omissions | Omission of scope/nature of affiliate network was material and concealed; Defendant had exclusive knowledge. | No duty to disclose beyond the Terms; disclosure suffices. | Court: Duty adequately alleged under Collins factors (exclusive knowledge and misleading partial representations). |
| Particularity under Rule 9(b) | Plaintiffs allege they saw and relied on the representations and paid for memberships. | Plaintiffs failed to plead who, what, when, where, how — no dates of seeing statements, purchase, or discovery; impossible to defend. | Court: Claims sound in fraud and fail Rule 9(b); dismissal required but with leave to amend because claims are plausible. |
| Economic injury (standing) | Plaintiffs lost money because misrepresentations induced paid memberships; materiality is a factual issue. | Plaintiffs received promised services; no money lost; emotional harm insufficient. | Court: Plaintiffs alleged they paid and would not have done so but did not plead timing/detail with particularity; standing not resolved on merits but inadequately pleaded under Rule 9(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standard for plausibility on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility and legal conclusions rule)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (fraud‑based claims subject to Rule 9(b))
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (actual reliance required for misrepresentation‑based UCL claims)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (reliance and materiality in UCL/CLRA claims)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (leave to amend generally granted)
- Hinojos v. Kohl’s Corp., 718 F.3d 1098 (standing/damages under UCL/CLRA)