Background checks split matchmaking sites

True.com's competitors, including Match.com, say the legislation is a marketing ploy designed to upstage them and boost True.com's standing among singles' websites. Match.com spokeswoman Kristin Kelly says the rest of the industry is "united against" background checks, in part because such checks often are incomplete and can give clients a false sense of security.

Such information is available from other Internet sites that specialize in offering background checks, Kelly says. "We just don't think the checks are ready for prime time. The information contained in the system is incomplete."

Her sentiments were echoed by the International Association of Dating websites, a group that represents more than 50 online dating services. It says that criminal background checks are too costly for most online services, and that True.com's proposal unfairly singles out dating sites from other matchmaking services such as personal ads.

Match.com says background checks would add $10 to $15 to the cost of its three-month membership. Match.com charges $50.97 for three months and $29.99 for one month; a subscription to True.com costs $49.99 a month.

Herb Vest, CEO of True.com, says background checks can help the online dating industry's credibility at a time when the number of paid subscriptions to such services is rising slowly but steadily after three years of dramatic growth.

In 2001, 1.6 million people subscribed to an online dating site, says Andrew Peach, research director for Jupiter Research, an Internet market research company in New York City. By 2004, there were 4.7 million subscribers.

"It's going to be better for everyone if the online dating industry is seen as a safe place," Vest says.

True.com's site touts its background checks as a reason to choose it over other dating sites. The company also vows to take legal action against criminals and married people who misrepresent themselves to get into the program.

Last month, True.com filed a lawsuit in federal court in California against a man who the company says is a convicted sex offender who misrepresented himself on his application by denying he was a felon. But it was a client who alerted the company to his background. True.com's checks don't include California's sex-offender registry.

Kelly says the case illustrates the limits of such checks.

Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and South Dakota are not covered by True.com's searches. In other states, checks are limited. In Arizona, the database doesn't have access to court records in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix.

True.com says it rejects 5% of its applicants because of criminal convictions. Vest acknowledges that True.com's system has holes, but says he hopes it discourages criminals from applying. "I can't promise criminals that they can't get on" True.com. "But if I find them, they're going to wish they hadn't."