California Verdicts

Plaintiff(s):

John Doe (Male, 50s)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Robert S. Green;
Green & Noblin, P.C.;
San Francisco,
CA,
for
John Doe ■ Lesley Weaver;
Green & Noblin, P.C.;
Larkspur,
CA,
for
John Doe ■ Enrico Shaefer;
Traverse Legal, PLC;
Traverse City,
MI,
for
John Doe

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Patrick Giordani;
Ph.D.;
Statistics & Surveys;
Los Angeles,
CA called by
Robert S. Green, Lesley Weaver

Defendant(s):

PositiveSingles.com, 

SuccessfulMatch.com

Defense Attorney(s):

Virginia Sanderson;
Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP;
San Francisco,
CA,
for
PositiveSingles.com, SuccessfulMatch.com ■ Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld;
Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP;
San Francisco,
CA,
for
PositiveSingles.com, SuccessfulMatch.com

In early spring 2009, the plaintiff, a man in his mid-50s, bought a membership to PositiveSingles.com, a dating Web site that caters specifically to people having sexually transmitted diseases. He used the Web site until 2011. However, unbeknownst to him, the Web site was a marketing device for a company that ran over 1,000 similar Web sites, which pooled the information supplied by their customers into one data pool. The company was then reposting its customers’ profiles onto its other Web sites. The man claimed that he did not know that his information would be shared among the Web sites. The plaintiff, acting on behalf of other customers of the Web site, sued PositiveSingles.com and SuccessfulMatch.com, which was the Web site that owned PositiveSingles.com. (SuccessfulMatch.com was operated out of Chengdu, China, and incorporated in California. It also claimed to have an office in Toronto, Canada.) The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ actions violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff’s counsel reported that because of the sensitive nature of the customer’s STD status, the plaintiff’s name was changed to "John Doe," and the class of users of the Web site filed a separate lawsuit in U.S. District Court, Northern District, San Jose (13-cv-03376-LHK), which is still ongoing. In regard to the Superior Court case, mediation was attempted multiple times by the parties, but each time proved to be unsuccessful. At trial, the plaintiff alleged that he did not know his private information would be distributed to several different Web sites online. He claimed the defendants did not properly inform the customers that their information would be distributed to other sites. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel contended that the defendants violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act by pooling the customer’s data and using it in ways not approved by the customers, and by using misleading language on their Web site to make users believe that their information would be secure. The plaintiff’s statistics and surveys expert testified in regards to the way search functions of other dating Web sites work, such as with eHarmony, Match.com, etc. He also opined that the defendants were improper in their sharing of user information. Defense counsel contended that provisions in the terms of service on PositiveSingles.com authorized the defendants to post user profiles on other sites as much as they wanted. Counsel further contended that the language on the Web site that talked about user privacy was simply puffery and that this language was not meant to be relied on as a legal guarantee.

The plaintiff sought recovery of compensatory damages for the membership fees he paid. He contended that these membership fees ranged from $29.95 per month to $95 for six months. The plaintiff also sought recovery of punitive damages, asking the jury for an appropriate amount to deter the defendants from attempting to mislead users in the same way again. Defense counsel disputed the plaintiff’s damages claims, contending that the defendants did nothing, so they were not obligated to pay compensatory or punitive damages.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and determined that his damages totaled $16,493,943.45.

John Doe: $15,000,000 Commercial: Punitive Exemplary Damages; $1,493,943 Commercial: compensatory damages

Judge:

Carrie A. Zepeda

Trial Length:

7
 days

Trial Deliberations:

1
 days

Jury Composition:

7 male/ 5 female

Post Trial:

Following the verdict, Judge Carrie Zepeda increased the compensatory damages award. Zepeda also found the Web site’s terms of service "unconscionable," and put injunctions in place that prohibited access of user’s profiles on other Web sites.

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s counsel. Defense counsel did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls.