The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Tinder Backgrounds" to Appear in Georgia Law Review
Why Dating Apps Should Have ID Verification and Mandatory Background Checks
Dating apps continue to make headlines for how little protection they provide against repeat violent offenders and arguably enable them. I have a law review article entitled "Tinder Backgrounds" that is forthcoming in the Georgia Law Review (and whose draft is available here) trying to address this issue. Here is the abstract:
In an era in which dating apps have become the primary matchmaker for millions of Americans, the lack of basic safety requirements for these platforms is both striking and dangerous. This Article explores how the rise of dating apps has created unprecedented opportunities for predators to exploit victims through deception and violence, while leaving those victims with virtually no legal recourse. Although dating apps have become critical infrastructure for modern relationship formation, their operators face minimal legal obligations to verify user identities or screen for unsafe individuals. Users have attempted to fill this regulatory void through self-help measures like crowdsourced warning groups on social media, but these informal solutions expose participants to defamation liability while failing to provide systematic protection.
As the Supreme Court considers ID verification requirements for adult websites in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, this Article argues that similar measures—combined with mandatory background checks—are actually of greater importance in the dating app context where physical safety is at stake. While dating apps match users who would otherwise never meet, this convenience brings heightened risks when perpetrators can easily misrepresent their identities and histories. This Article proposes a federal framework requiring dating apps to verify and store user identities through government-issued IDs and conduct criminal background checks. This approach would help to prevent sexual, financial, and other predation while preserving the core benefits that make online dating valuable. The Article demonstrates why traditional objections to regulating intimacy and dating markets hold less force in an era of industrialized matchmaking, and how existing precedents support reasonable verification requirements that protect user safety as technology-assisted deception (including via artificial intelligence) continues to evolve. Through carefully calibrated regulation focused on prevention rather than after-the-fact remedies, the law can better protect the many individuals who rely on dating apps to find connection.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Criminal background checks? No
Id requirements? If this had value, some startup would offer it, and people could sign up for a site where everyone was verified.
Just say no to federal involvement in dating behavior.
The real problem with dating sites is they have a strong incentive to keep you single and receive ongoing subscription revenue.
"While dating apps match users who would otherwise never meet, this convenience brings heightened risks when perpetrators can easily misrepresent their identities and histories. This Article proposes a federal framework requiring dating apps to verify and store user identities through government-issued IDs and conduct criminal background checks. This approach would help to prevent sexual, financial, and other predation while preserving the core benefits that make online dating valuable."
Should similar measures be required of cell phone service providers? After all, their customers can easily misrepresent their identities and histories via aural or text transmissions.
Neat. Qualify for a dating app and get a carry permit for free!
This is my rifle. This is my gun. This one's for dating. This one's for fun.
In the immediately prior era, the primary domain for matchmaking for "millions of Americans" was the bar. Did bad stuff happen at bars? Of course. Were bars responsible for establishing "basic safety requirements" for the matchmaking that happened there? Of course not. This idea that dating apps must somehow be held to a higher standard that prior ways of matchmaking is paternalistic and demeaning. The very idea requires first rejecting the agency of women, an idea that in other contexts, I'm sure the author would consider anathema.
It is not the responsibility of dating apps to verify user identities or to "screen for unsafe individuals". If you seriously believe there is a market for a 'walled garden' dating app with verified identities, feel free to set up your own and see if the market agrees with you. In the meantime, this default to government coercion is an affront to individual liberties.
In all fairness, they did actually conduct age verification, and throw out the obnoxious drunks.
Alcohol-serving bars did - for the purposes of complying with alcohol laws. Juice bars, coffee bars and even many alcohol bars if you weren't drinking (though you might have to wear a wrist band saying so) didn't check ages yet were common parts of the matchmaking process. And you had to be really obnoxious to get thrown out.
This. Also, I have never used a dating app, but I'm pretty sure a lot of them, maybe most of them, offer identity verification as an option, if not a requirement.
I'm curious why anyone would think this would receive a positive reception at a libertarian blog.
Re: Rossami's comment about the market for a "walled garden" dating app, apparently there are several of them (https://www.datingadvice.com/for-women/dating-sites-that-do-background-checks) including some of the major players (Match, Tinder).
Maybe take responsibility for yourself and your own security rather than creating more governmental interference you Marxist twat. Is that beyond you or do you just not see how personal responsibility could be used as a Leftist powerbase?