Lawmaker Wants to Make Online Dating Safer

DAILY HERALD -- Jan 22 -- "It would be a benefit to the industry. You would provide a safer, more secure level of participation and entice more people to join dating services," said state Rep. John Bradley, a Marion Democrat, who's sponsoring the plan. Bradley, who's married, said he simply wants to make online dating safer. The driving force behind background checks is TRUE.com, which checks for criminal and marriage histories and threatens to go after those who lie. TRUE said checks can cost as little as $1.50. ~5% of people looking to join the site are rejected because they either fail criminal background screenings or they fail a marriage check.

Comments

[Alexander Shetinin www.sweetduet.net]

Mark,

Stop it already! That's enough!
Though you may want to spark a new round of boiling blood discussion, but why don't you choose some other topic? We have heard enough from True, about True, against True...
That's enough!

Leave the industry alone and mind your business, dear True and all sorts of state Reps!

[Bill Broadbent]

I agree Alexander - we just add fuel to their already put out fire. Notice how Jr. disappeared because he got his ass whooped here? (Hmmm - would that abuse have shown up with their background checks?) I'm done with this because they are just self-serving hypocrits that don't disclose to their members the flaws in their checks while aggressively promoting safer dating. And I agree Mark - enough is enough. Maybe the story you should do is on the potential false sense of security they promote combined with the fact that they admit people don't read their terms of service agreements so they likely may be entitled to refunds if they don't know what they are really getting?

[Mark Brooks]

OPW serves up news summaries for busy industry execs. I report the news. This is news.

I get the impression there is widespread misconception in the press and industry about the nature of this legislation. It does not call for online dating sites to do backgound checks. It calls for online dating sites to disclose (albeit on their home pages) if they don't perform background checks.

Beating down commenters on OPW will result in a ban. I'm building OPW to be a safe place for CEO's to comment. Please bear that in mind. I know you feel passionately about this subject area, and I really appreciate your commentary. But, personal attacks are not in keeping with OPW. Attack the issues, not the people.

OPW is a safe place for execs to comment. It's also very good for SEO.

Mark Brooks
Editor
Online Personals Watch

[Bill Broadbent]

There is a lot of misconception the media gets here Mark. The fish rots from the head.

[Bill Broadbent]

By the way Mark and for the record, a lot of the participants here have given Junior Vest and his Papa their "BEAT DOWN" (quoting you) because their arguments are not only pathetic, weak, Machiavellian in nature and laced with clear self serving rhetoric; they also epitomize hypocrisy in its purest form. I've tried to find their disclosures on the loopholes in their background checks and I can't find them. They are clearly not on their homepage. Fortunately for the industry and singles in search of love, their fuzzy logic clearly seems to be only convincing politicians catching some of those surreptitious lobbying dollars (or trying to ride the buzz of a hot industry along with the media reps looking for hot "news") and others with their own hidden agendas and secret relationships with True. Once someone digs into the facts, their arguments get crushed. Finally and notwithstanding, I would suggest "Banning" people for destroying their bad arguments that were clearly designed to damage the industry for anyone but True would leave you with not only no readers but a certain amount of backlash from the rest of the industry that understand the facts.

Bill Broadbent
CEO
Instinct Marketing

[Binks]

Mark,

Everyone knows you are on True's payroll. How about telling the TRUTH for a change. You want issues. How about the following?

True.com which touts it's self as the safer dating service and the owner Herb Vest is behind litigation to require all online dating services to disclose if they conduct background checks should be investigated for date bait along with several other questionable business practices.

Vest is being sued in Dallas, Texas by his former fiancee. The details of the woman's case is very disturbing. Vest who is fighting to require background checks is now fighting to keep the detail affidavit by this woman seal. Vest sited it would damage his business and personal life.
Some of the details includes Vest with prostitutes, Threesomes with lesbians. Several sexual harassment claims against Vest

Vest wants everyone to submit to a background check so that should included Vest's background Vest is suing Dr. Wells for his past. Vest past is just as perverted.

In addition ask Vest about the following business practices.

Apparently, Corante blog has posters that claim they have seen documentation of fraud on the part of True. That is, employees who claim that part of their job description was to pose as real people and keep people as members to motivate them to become paid subscribers.

I think that this issue becomes even more pertinent in light of similar allegations currently against Match.com and Yahoo Personals. Vest should be questioned about these allegations of fraud. Vest and management should answer whether they have any knowledge of fake/bait profiles being used by True employees at the direction of Vest and/or any of the executive management to essentially deceive or defraud customers or potential customers.

Secrets True.com doesn't want made public!

1. "Is the endorsement from Psychology Today an academic endorsement or a paid endorsement?"

2. "You state on your site that you have a team of experts behind your testing/psychology services... who are they exactly and how do I get in touch with them in order to ask them what they specifically do for True and examples of recent work." "Or, perhaps you (True.com) is overstating their roles as a marketing gimmick."

3. "It seems True has been busy altering the authorship of certain online articles in its online magazine from Dr. James Houran to "Psychology Department" -- implying Houran is still a part of the psychology dept. and that True has an active psychology dept." Why is it making these changes in authorship? Does the online magazine editor (Leah Gentry, formerly a journalist with the LA Times) endorse this practice?"

4. Why has True.com not revealed to its customers that they no longer have the benefit of Dr. James Houran? He was arguably a huge value ad to the business and the welfare of the customers, yet customers are not told he is no longer with the company. True pushes for legislation requiring disclosure and yet they curiously are not disclosing that certain features/ benefits of the site are no longer part of the price of membership."

FYI: Dr. Jim Houran was fired in October and True is suing him. True is bullying him so he and another man will agree to sign over any rights to tests they created Such as the sex test. Vest wants to patient those tests. Vest is going into the sex trade industries. Look at the new ads of a naked girl with a banner over her lap

Also, Vest and his wife has broken their own rule: NO MARRIED PEOPLE ALLOWED.

VEST OFTEN GOES TO THE CHAT ROOM TO FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON. TRUE CLAIMS NO MARRIED PEOPLE CAN CONTACT THEIR MEMBERS.

[Dan]

AS FOR BACKGROUND CHECK LAWS. LAWMAKERS HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED ABOUT THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUE AND VEST.

WITH THE FALL OUT FROM THE LOBBIST AND LAWMAKERS. QUESTIONABLE ISSUES AND MONEY ARE THE LAST THING ANYONE WANTS RIGHT NOW.

[James Houran]

Dear OPW,

A specific clarification from me has become necessary given the constant postings here about online testing and True.

True.com completely owns the True Compatibility Test (TCT), and it completely owns the thematic content of the Sexploration Test. I know this to be correct, because I and my former psychology team (including consultants) created these tests for True.com under contract.

Accordingly, True.com's intellectual property should be acknowledged and respected as such.

Thank you,

James Houran, Ph.D.
Research Psychologist

[Dan]

Dr. Houran

What/Why is True suing you? My understanding is Vest wants you to sign over all rights to these tests. Also demanding a two year noncompete contract. And, has accused you of theft. If True owns the tests why are they attacking you?

Do you have any comments regarding the deceptive business practices by True, Vest, or the management. What happen to the experts at True?
Vest has damaged, liable, and slandered your reputation. Why haven't you gone public? better yet why have you not sued Vest?

[Dan]

Dr. Houran

I hear a hugh lawsuit is in the works against Vest. I also hear the claims are so damaging that True is going down. From what I hear Vest stands to lose millions and maybe his freedom.

Match may just get the evidence they have been looking for! The AG is watching too! This may lead to prison time for Vest folks. Vest financial problems must not be to bad if he can afford a new rack for the Mrs. Guess the money Papa Vest got from Jr. was to pay for his step moms boob job. Papa likes them HUGH!! This chick is a real looker big horse teeth and the hugh freaky rack.

Dr. Houran you should check out the website that posted the detail affidavits and documents of Vest's former fiancee's lawsuit against Vest. The SEC and IRS are sure to find it interesting reading. After reading it I am not surprised True is going into the porn bus. Vest has some sicko habits and Vest is suing Dr. Wells?

Dr. Houran do you have any comments?