InfoTech: when is "seeding" fraud?

The action, against dating site redhotpie.com.au, alleges that the site engaged in misleading conduct in creating false profiles.

The website, which recently published the results of its survey into Australian sexual trends, promotes itself with the tag-line "everybody's doing it" and carries the message " Whether you are looking for free sex or adult personals RedHotPie will help you find friends, romance & relationships." It also claims to list "swingers" parties around Australia.

The owners of the site, Jetplace Pty Ltd, allegedly invented customers and profiles for them, using the fake profile to attract new visitors, says the ACCC.

Claims of 1.6 million members and representations that members could enter into on-line chats with every member - with the possibility of meeting them - were not true, the ACCC alleges.

This was particularly so in relation to private "flirt" messages sent by the site operators to real customers from the accounts backed by fictitious profiles.

The case brings into question the common practice of seeding websites to attract visitors and, ultimately, to earn revenue from them.

Dating agencies have long been accused of producing adverts with fake profiles to attract business, and it's not all high-tech: ads containing fictional details and placed in the classified sections of newspapers are common, say disgruntled users, some of whom have demanded their money back or even sued over the misrepresentations.

But the question of seeding internet sites came to a head in 2006 when a blogger in the USA wrote that he had seen a photo of one of his friends in an advertisement for a dating service. The ad claimed she was 22 and living in Tasmania, Australia; yet he knew she was 20 and living in California. He also recognised the photo: it was the girl's profile photo from MySpace.

A 2005 lawsuit in the USA alleged that the world's largest dating site, Match.Com had employees create fake profiles and use them as "date bait," a term that appears to have been coined for that litigation. That suit alleged that Match.Com employees even went on dates so that customers would not suspect anything. Match.Com categorically denied all the allegations. Following a failed attempt to find substantial numbers of plaintiffs and to have the case classified as a class-action, the case was withdrawn.

In another suit, issued by a New York resident this year, Sean McGinn claims USD 5 million from Match.Com, alleging that inactive profiles are not culled and that he and others feel "completely ignored and rejected," according to his lawyer Norah Hart. They say that one user received almost three dozen messages from paying members but, as her account was inactive, she could not read them or reply to them. They, too, are trying to raise the wind for a class action.

But McGinn's case appears overstated, one might imagine. She says McGinn is “the perfect example of a man who is really attractive, extremely eligible and gainfully employed. He’s writing to people and hears nothing back from them. Is that because they’re not interested? That’s highly unlikely.” The claim as to his being "really attractive" can be seen in a Fox News Kelly's Court episode at http://www.opposingviews.com/

Oh, and he allegedly found his girlfriend using Match.Com.