Sexual dating sites pay pal

In general, a company is free to pick its business partners.

Infostream responded with the allegation that Pay Pal was invoking its unfairly, because the company continues to provide services to competitor sites that are similar to its own, such as Ashley Madison.com, which urges users to “have an affair,” and Arrangement Finders.com, which promotes “mutually beneficial arrangements” between men and women. Infostream had adequately alleged that obligation had been breached, the court said, if it could show that Pay Pal terminated the account in order to benefit Infostream’s competitors.

And it must back up its allegations with facts during the discovery stage, and survive a likely motion for summary judgment by Pay Pal, assuming that the parties do not “seek an arrangement” by settling the case. Neuburger is a partner in the New York office of Proskauer Rose , and co-chair of the Technology, Media and Communications Practice Group.

His practice focuses on technology and media-related business transactions and counseling of clients in the utilization of new media.

That kind of attention can be a concern not only for a dating site itself, but also for other online services that provide support to such sites, such as hosting companies and payment services. Sherman Act antitrust claims were dismissed (but with leave to file an amended complaint) because Infostream’s allegations that Pay Pal has an ownership interest in sites that compete with Infostream’s sites were deemed speculative.

So it’s not surprising that service providers seek to protect themselves contractually from the potential legal and business consequences of being associated with purveyors of shady, unsavory, or downright illegal services. Claims of common law fraud were dismissed (also with leave to amend), because Infostream did not adequately allege that it had detrimentally relied upon Pay Pal’s representations to it during the parties’ negotiations prior to the account termination.

Leave a Reply