IN THE STATE COURT OF FULTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA … · rape fantasy and listed it as “important” that a potential match also did not have such fantasies may have been falsely

1

IN THE STATE COURT OF FULTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

Plaintiff,

v.

IAC/INTERACTIVECORP., MATCH GROUP, INC., HUMOR RAINBOW, INC., and DEVIN RICHARD HARTMAN

Defendants.

)))))))))))

Civil Action No. ________________

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff 1 and hereby files this Complaint, as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1.

Plaintiff brings this action against IAC/InterActiveCorp

(“IAC”); Match Group, Inc. (“Match Group”); Humor Rainbow, Inc. (“Humor Rainbow”); and

Devin Richard Hartman (“Hartman”) for claims arising from a rape and sexual assault. On June

20, 2014, Defendant Hartman drugged and raped after luring her on a first date through the

popular dating website OkCupid. Prior to rape, one of Hartman’s previous victims warned

OkCupid’s operating company, Defendant Humor Rainbow, that Hartman used the website to

rape her. Nonetheless, OkCupid’s owners and operators—Defendants IAC, Match

1 Due to the nature of this case, Plaintiff suggests she be referred to by her initials, but identifies herself by name for notice purposes herein.

2

Group, and Humor Rainbow2—failed to warn of Hartman’s activities and instead allowed a

known predator to use its service. By the time of his arrest and conviction for crimes against ,

according to published reports, Hartman had sexually assaulted at least four other women, often

using Defendants’ dating websites to lure his targets.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

2.

is a citizen and resident of the State of Georgia for purposes of venue and

jurisdiction. She submits herself to the jurisdiction of this Court. She was sexually assaulted on

June 20, 2014, by Defendant Hartman in Fulton County, after meeting him through OkCupid.

3.

IAC is New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New

York. IAC sells and advertises its products and services in the State of Georgia and does

substantial business in this state. IAC is a self-described “leading media and internet company

comprised of some of the world’s most recognized brands and products,” such as Match.com,

PlentyofFish, Tinder, Vimeo, Ask.com, About.com, and Investopedia. At all times relevant to

this Complaint, IAC owned and operated Match Group, Humor Rainbow, Inc., and OKCupid.

IAC may be served through its registered agent, CT Corporation System, 111 Eighth Avenue,

New York, New York 10011.

4.

Jurisdiction and venue are proper as to IAC.

2 hereinafter refers to IAC, Match Group, and Humor Rainbow collectively as “OkCupid Defendants.”

3

5.

IAC has been properly served with process in this action.

6.

Match Group is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas,

Texas. Match Group sells and advertises its products and services in the State of Georgia and

does substantial business in this state. As it tells its investors, “Match Group is the world’s

leading provider of dating products,” operating a “portfolio of trusted brands,” “each designed to

increase our users’ likelihood of finding a romantic connection.” At all times relevant to this

Complaint, Match Group was a subsidiary of IAC and owned and operated Humor Rainbow and

OkCupid. Match Group may be served through its registered agent, the Corporation Trust

Company, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.

7.

Jurisdiction and venue are proper as to Match Group.

8.

Match Group has been properly served with process in this action.

9.

Humor Rainbow is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New

York, New York. Humor Rainbow sells and advertises its product and services in the State of

Georgia and does substantial business in this state. At all times relevant to this Complaint,

Humor Rainbow operated OkCupid and was a subsidiary of IAC. Humor Rainbow may be

served through its registered agent, CT Corporation System, 111 Eighth Avenue, New York,

New York 10011.

4

10.

Jurisdiction and venue are proper as to Humor Rainbow.

11.

Humor Rainbow has been properly served with process in this action.

12.

Hartman is a Georgia citizen presently serving two life sentences for rape and aggravated

sodomy at the Coffee Correctional Facility and is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this

Court.

13.

Jurisdiction and venue are proper as to Defendant Hartman.

14.

Defendant Hartman has been properly served with process in this action.

15.

Venue and jurisdiction are proper against all defendants under O.C.G.A. §§ 9-10-91, 9-

10-93 because Defendants committed tortious acts and omissions in the State of Georgia and

Fulton County, and all OkCupid Defendants sell and advertise their services and products in this

state.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND NEGLIGENCE

OkCupid’s website and operations

16.

According to its parent company, IAC, OkCupid is “one of the world’s fastest-growing

dating sites,” whose “effective matching algorithm” is responsible for analyzing, considering,

5

and matching users for first dates. OkCupid offers its services through a website,

www.okcupid.com, and on a mobile phone application. Upon information and belief, OkCupid

Defendants advertise on radio and other traditional media outlets.

17.

At all relevant times, OkCupid’s product worked as follows: users generate a dating

profile, answer a series of multiple-choice questions, and then OkCupid voluntarily analyzes and

steers the user to other users with whom they share a high “Match percentage,” a figure that

purportedly demonstrates two users’ compatibility. OkCupid is a for profit company.

18.

To sign up for service, OkCupid users first enter identifying information, including a date

of birth, zip code, and valid e-mail address. Upon information and belief, OkCupid uses software

to verify the validity of users’ e-mail addresses and to block spam accounts.

19.

After providing identifying information, users create a username and password. Users on

OkCupid are identified publicly on the website only by their username, not by real name or e-

mail. As a result, OkCupid’s owners and operators are in a better position than users to research,

verify, screen, and vet the identity and activities of other users.

20.

After members create a username and password, OkCupid marshals the members

through several steps to create profiles designed to maximize page views and generate matches.

OkCupid provides users with a template to insert certain information such as interests and

6

activities. OkCupid also provides a 16-item “My Details” tab to list a user’s basic background

information, such as age range, body type, and ethnicity.

21.

To distinguish itself from competitors and for competitive business purposes, OkCupid

advertises that it uses a unique algorithm to “find you dates” and “people you’ll actually like.”

Unlike many competitor dating sites that simply allow users to post and browse one another’s

profiles, OkCupid represents to members that it provides a unique product that “use[s] math” to

process user information and find compatible dates.

22.

OkCupid’s “matching algorithm” works by asking users a series of personality questions,

each with three subparts. The personality questions range from “Could you date someone messy”

to “Do you have rape fantasies?” For each question, a user indicates his or her answer, the

answer she wants in a partner, and the question’s importance to the user. These answers enter an

algorithm, which generates a “Match percentage.” The Match percentage purportedly shows the

compatibility of two users for a romantic relationship.

23.

OkCupid Defendants did not warn other users when a user with whom they had been

communicating admitted having rape fantasies. Plaintiff did not indicate any such fantasy.

24.

Around the time of rape and sexual assault, OkCupid falsely and negligently

represented to members that its matching algorithm was “extremely accurate” and based on

“math.” According to its website, “Most other matching sites are just glorified personals

7

services. Their ‘matching’ systems are nonexistent or overly subjective. We don’t claim to

evaluate you perfectly, but we do claim to find someone who claims to fulfill your claimed

requirements, exactly.”

25.

In truth, in late July 2014, one month after rape, one of OkCupid’s founders

admitted the company intentionally changed some user profiles and falsified Match percentages

to test its algorithm without users’ prior knowledge. OkCupid justified its misrepresentations by

stating, blithely, “That’s how websites work.” As a result, a person who said they did not have a

rape fantasy and listed it as “important” that a potential match also did not have such fantasies

may have been falsely told she was a good match with a user who did.

26.

In addition to promoting and displaying user profiles to other users based on its unique

algorithm through its website, OkCupid also often e-mailed users a list of matches to view and

contact. OkCupid has direct involvement in choosing which profiles and users to introduce and

feature to other members.

27.

Years before rape, OkCupid Defendants knew that predators regularly used

OkCupid and its sister sites such as Match.com to hunt, lure, and sexually assault other members.

Nonetheless, OkCupid failed to take meaningful action to ebb this practice and warn users and,

to the contrary, often ignored members’ reports of rape.

8

28.

At all relevant times, OkCupid represented to users in its terms of use that it will take

“appropriate action” upon receiving notice of dangerous users:

If you believe that any user of this Website is harassing you or is otherwise using personal information about you for unlawful purposes, we encourage you to first inform local law enforcement authorities and then to contact us via The Feedback Form so that we may take appropriate action to block further use of the Website by any user who is using this Website and information obtained from it for improper purposes.

29.

OkCupid also represented on its website it “will deal swiftly” with members who harm

other members or violate its terms of use:

We take harassment, spam, and other Terms & Conditions violations very, very seriously. This is our house!

If the offending member is harassing you, spamming you, or otherwise making OkCupid a bad place to be, please let us know by reporting them [sic]. Doing so is completely confidential, and we will deal swiftly with the problem.

To report somone [sic], visit their [sic] profile and click on the flag icon next to the ‘Hide’ button at the top.

30.

Although it represents that it will take “appropriate action” and “deal swiftly” with

unlawful users, OkCupid Defendants are in truth slow or completely unresponsive to reports of

rape and sexual assault by its users. As it relates to their customers and co-defendant Hartman,

OkCupid took no such action despite direct notice of him being a rapist, and negligently failed to

do anything with regard to such warning before incident.

9

31.

Match Group also claims that “we monitor and review the appropriateness of the content

accessible through our dating products and have adopted policies regarding illegal or offensive

use of our dating products.”

32.

Match Group’s representations that it monitors and reviews the appropriateness of

content is belied by the fact that Match Group websites routinely fail to respond to reports of

rape or abuse facilitated through its websites. The failure to monitor and respond to reports of

sexual assault is not limited to OkCupid but is rather a systemic problem affecting all Match

Group brands. For example, between 2011 and 2014, a British Match.com user was permitted to

contact thousands of women through Match.com, which is owned by Match Group and IAC, and

rape or sexually assault at least seven women, even though four women previously reported to

the site that the man raped them. According to published news accounts, the women pleaded

with Match.com to remove his profile. Match.com justified its failure to respond to the reports by

stating that its policy was “to act only on events which we could verify, such as written

messages,” an impossibly high standard that provides no meaningful protection to the site’s

users.

33.

Likewise, according to reliable news accounts, Match.com user R.L. allegedly raped one

woman in December 2009, even though a prior rape victim reported his activities to the

website’s owners and operators. Much like the event with , Match.com did not take any

action to remove R.L. from the website or warn other users despite its knowledge of a prior rape.

10

34.

Upon information and belief, OkCupid’s owners and operators make little to no effort to

screen and monitor the activities of its members but rather randomly select certain users to act as

“moderators” for screening other users’ content. Upon information and belief, moderators are

randomly selected regardless of their qualifications. The monitors are also incapable of keeping

up with the reported “40,000” first dates analyzed and created by OkCupid Defendants on a daily

basis. OkCupid’s moderators receive no training or background screening yet are privy to other

users’ private information and communications and are tasked with determining the

appropriateness of user activities, pictures, and posts.

35.

OkCupid Defendants knew that their website and product posed an unreasonable risk and

danger to users such as and knew that Hartman had used the service to sexually assault

at least one other women but took no meaningful action to warn or other users of his

activities.

36.

Other similarly situated businesses and social media websites routinely lock out users in

the exercise of ordinary care. For example, at least one mobile phone application “locks out”

users who attempt to create several profiles using the same e-mail address. However, upon

information and belief, OkCupid does not block users of the site, even if that user had a prior

profile that was the subject of an allegation of rape or sexual assault.

11

37.

OkCupid Defendants are not immune from suit in this case under the Communications

Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, because they are information content providers with respect to

the allegations and claims in this Complaint.

Devin Hartman’s prior rapes

38.

On June 25, 2011, Defendant Hartman raped S.F.3 after they met on a first date through

Plenty of Fish, a dating site owned and operated by Defendants IAC and Match Group. Hartman

represented to S.F. that his name was “Zach Anderson.”

39.

On August 7, 2012, Defendant Hartman raped with force a woman named K.N. on a first

date after Hartman and K.N. met on OkCupid. Hartman, who represented to K.N. that his name

was “Zach Anderson,” operated on OkCupid through the username, TIIguy11, and falsely

claimed on his profile that he was a graduate of Ohio State University working in medical sales.

40.

After contacting police, K.N. sent an e-mail to “OkCupid User Feedback” stating, “I just

wanted to let you know there is a rapist on here. TIIguy11. I accidentally favorited him trying to

save his picture for the police can you fix that? Thank you.”

41.

An OkCupid employee responded to K.N.’s e-mail, as follows: “Hi, I don’t see an

account with the username TIIguy11. Can you double-check the username please? Thanks,

3 Victims’ initials are used to protect their identities, but both Plaintiff and Defendants are aware of their names.

12

Alice.” K.N. replied: “Hmm that weird. It’s T and two capital II guy 11. I just saw him. I hope

you can find him!” No one at OkCupid responded to K.N.’s last e-mail and, upon information

and belief, made no further effort to locate or identify a member under the name “TIIguy11.”

42.

According to media reports, prior to meeting , Hartman raped at least four known

women he met on dating websites, and likely many others who have not come forward.

joins OkCupid

43.

joined OkCupid on May 11, 2014.

44.

On June 11, 2014, under the username “midwestisbest13,” Devin Hartman messaged

through OkCupid, representing his name to be Zach Anderson. Upon information and

belief, Hartman discovered because they shared a high “Match percentage,” and because

OkCupid’s programming and algorithms directed Hartman to her.

45.

Much like his representations to K.N., Hartman misrepresented to that he was a

graduate of Ohio State University working for a medical device company. Hartman provided

similar information on his “midwestisbest13” profile as the profile he used to rape K.N. Had it

performed even a basic screening or monitoring of member activities, OkCupid Defendants

would have known that Hartman was again using its service to victimize women.

13

46.

On June 20, 2014, and Hartman met at a Midtown Atlanta, Fulton

County restaurant at approximately 3 p.m.

47.

During the date, Hartman slipped a date rape drug in drink, took her to his car in

a nearby parking lot, and raped her.

48.

Shortly after her rape, a police detective alerted the owners and operators of OkCupid

about the incident. Nonetheless, Hartman continued using the profile and username with which

he lured and raped through November 24, 2014, approximately five months after the

rape. OkCupid’s failure to remove Hartman’s profile for a second time shows that its owners

and operators did not take adequate measures upon learning that a rapist uses its product.

49.

On December 9, 2015, a Fulton County jury convicted Hartman of rape and aggravated

sodomy. A Fulton County judge sentenced Hartman to two life sentences.

50.

OkCupid Defendants did not warn or give any information to about Hartman,

even though OkCupid Defendants knew or should have known that Hartman contacted

through their service and had targeted women with similar characteristics using the same means

as he used to target and lure .

14

51.

suffered serious physical injuries, pain and suffering, and mental distress as a

result of Devin Hartman’s sexual assault.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

(OkCupid Defendants’ Negligence)

52.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 16–51 as if fully restated herein.

53.

OkCupid Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in operating its website,

monitoring users, screening users, and acting on reports of rape and sexual assault.

54.

OkCupid Defendants voluntarily undertook a duty to screen, monitor, and take

“appropriate action” and “deal swiftly” with members who use the service for unlawful purposes

such as raping other members.

55.

OkCupid Defendants knew or should have known of the foreseeable risk of harm to

which was subjected, including but not limited to the drugging and sexual assault on

her person by the known rapist Devin Hartman, also known as Zach Anderson.

56.

OkCupid Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in operating its website,

monitoring users, screening users, and acting on reports of rape and sexual assault.

15

57.

OkCupid Defendants negligently failed to investigate and respond to K.N.’s report that

Hartman raped her after they met through OkCupid.

58.

OkCupid Defendants negligently failed to comply with its written policies stating it will

“take appropriate action” and “deal swiftly” with users such as Hartman who use the website for

further unlawful purposes.

59.

OkCupid Defendants negligently failed to enact or promulgate policies, procedures, and a

system for screening and monitoring users such as Hartman who use the service to drug, rape,

and assault other users.

60.

OkCupid Defendants negligently failed to properly supervise its employees to ensure that

they acted upon and investigated reports of rape and abuse facilitated through the website.

61.

OkCupid Defendants negligently failed to screen users to prohibit rapists such as

Hartman from using the service to target and victimize other users.

62.

OkCupid Defendants negligently failed to train or re-train its employees and moderators

to identify and respond to reports of abuse and rape on the website.

63.

OkCupid Defendants were and are negligent per se.

16

64.

As a direct and proximate cause of OkCupid Defendants’ negligence,

was drugged, raped, and sexually assaulted by Hartman and suffered from physical injuries,

emotional distress, pain and suffering, lost past and future wages, and loss of enjoyment of life.

65.

Each of the foregoing acts, omissions, and factual allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs constitute an independent act of negligence on the part of OkCupid Defendants and

one or more or all above stated acts were proximate causes of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff.

OkCupid Defendants are liable for Plaintiff’s injuries sustained, pain and suffering, the expenses

of treatment and all other elements of damages allowed under the laws of the State of Georgia,

including all special, compensatory, incidental, consequential, economic, and punitive damages.

66.

Plaintiff brings each and every claim permissible under Georgia law for her injuries

suffered in the incident at issue, and to recover for all special damages, economic losses,

medical expenses, necessary expenses, pain and suffering, and all compensatory, special, actual,

general and punitive damages permissible under Georgia law. Plaintiff seeks all compensatory,

special, economic, consequential, general, punitive, and all other damages permissible under

Georgia Law, including, but not limited to:

a) Personal injuries;

b) Past, present, and future pain and suffering;

c) Past, present, and future lost wages and economic damages;

d) Past, present, and future medical expenses;

17

e) Disability;

f) Mental anguish;

g) Lost ability to labor;

h) Loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life;

i) Incidental expenses;

j) Permanent injuries; and

k) Consequential damages to be proven at trial.

67.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages, without limitation or cap, from OkCupid

Defendants because the actions of OkCupid Defendants and their agents and employees showed

an entire want of care that would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to

consequences. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from the

Defendants in accordance with the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury.

COUNT II

(OkCupid Defendants’ failure to warn)

68.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 16–51 as if fully set forth herein.

69.

OkCupid Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge that Hartman and similar

users were using its product and service to target and victimize unsuspecting women.

18

70.

OkCupid Defendants had actual knowledge that Hartman used its product and service to

rape another woman prior to drugging, raping, and sexually assaulting .

71.

Because OkCupid Defendants had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition existing on

its service, OkCupid had a duty to warn users such as of the dangers known to it that

rendered the product and service unreasonably dangerous to and the general public.

72.

OkCupid Defendants voluntarily undertook a duty to screen, monitor, warn, and take

“appropriate action” and “deal swiftly” with members who use the service for unlawful purposes

such as raping other members.

73.

OkCupid Defendants failed to warn of Hartman’s activities and of the dangers

they knew existed on the OkCupid service, and thereby breached a duty of care to and

the general public.

74.

As a direct and proximate cause of OkCupid’s failure to warn, was drugged,

raped, and sexually assaulted by Hartman and suffered from physical injuries, emotional distress,

pain and suffering, lost past and future wages, and loss of enjoyment of life.

19

75.

Each of the foregoing acts and omissions constitute an independent act of negligence on

the part of OkCupid Defendants and one or more or all above stated acts were proximate causes

of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff. OkCupid Defendants are liable for Plaintiff’s injuries

sustained, pain and suffering, the expenses of treatment and all other elements of damages

allowed under the laws of the State of Georgia, including all special, compensatory, incidental,

consequential, economic, and punitive damages.

76.











e) Disability;

f) Mental anguish;



20




77.






COUNT III

(OkCupid Defendants’ Breach of Contract)

78.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference by reference Paragraphs 16–51 as if fully restated

herein.

79.

and OkCupid Defendants entered a contract on May 11, 2014, when

signed up for service on the website.

80.

and OkCupid Defendants’ contract was supported by valid consideration.

In exchange for allowing to use its service, OkCupid used ’s profile as

part of its service to obtain advertising revenue and sold her information and data to other

companies.

21

81.

As part of the contract, OkCupid Defendants agreed to “take appropriate action” and

“deal swiftly” with reports of members using the service for unlawful reasons.

82.

OkCupid Defendants breached their contract to take action and deal swiftly with reports

of members using the service for unlawful reasons. OkCupid Defendants received a report that

Defendant Hartman had used the service to rape K.N. but failed to take any action or deal swiftly

with the information.

83.

OkCupid Defendants’ breaches of contract were proximate causes of ’s losses

and damages and entitle her to recover damages for her injuries, medical expenses, emotional

distress, pain and suffering, and all other damages arising from the breach of contract.

COUNT IV

(OkCupid Defendants’ Fraudulent Misrepresentations)

84.


85.

OkCupid Defendants fraudulently and recklessly represented to that:

(a) OkCupid takes “appropriate action” upon receiving notice of a member who uses

the service for unlawful purposes;

(b) OkCupid will “deal swiftly” with problems related to users making OkCupid “a

bad place to be” or otherwise using the service for unlawful purposes; and

22

(c) OkCupid’s matching algorithm is “extremely accurate” and based on math.

86.

OkCupid Defendants made the foregoing fraudulent misrepresentations with intent to

deceive its members.

87.

In fact, OkCupid does not take appropriate action or deal swiftly with problems related to

members using the service for unlawful purposes. OkCupid Defendants are often slow or

completely unresponsive to reports of rape and abuse from users. Around the time of Lusher’s

rape and sexual assault, OkCupid also falsified its “Match percentages,” meaning they were

neither accurate nor based on math, a blatant misrepresentation of its website content.

88.

justifiably relied on OkCupid Defendants’ fraudulent misrepresentations when

using OkCupid.

89.

As a direct and proximate cause of 's reliance on OkCupid Defendants’

misrepresentations, she was drugged, raped, and sexually assaulted by Defendant Hartman.

90.





23







e) Disability;

f) Mental anguish;






91.






24

COUNT V

(OkCupid Defendants’ Negligent Misrepresentations)

92.


93.

OkCupid Defendants negligently represented to that:

(a) OkCupid takes “appropriate action” upon receiving notice of a member who uses

the service for unlawful purposes;

(b) OkCupid will “deal swiftly” with problems related to users making OkCupid “a

bad place to be” or otherwise using the service for unlawful purposes; and

(c) OkCupid’s matching algorithm is “extremely accurate” and based on math.

94.

OkCupid Defendants knew or should have known that the foregoing representations were

false. In fact, OkCupid does not take appropriate action or deal swiftly with problems related to

members using the service for unlawful purposes. OkCupid Defendants are often slow or

completely unresponsive to reports of rape and abuse from users. Around the time of Lusher’s

rape and sexual assault, OkCupid also falsified its “Match percentages,” meaning they were

neither accurate nor based on math.

95.

justifiably relied on OkCupid Defendants’ misrepresentations when using

OkCupid.

25

96.

As a direct and proximate cause of ’s reliance on OkCupid Defendants’

misrepresentations, was drugged, raped, and sexually assaulted by Defendant Hartman.

97.











e) Disability;

f) Mental anguish;






26

98.






COUNT VI

(Devin Hartman’s Assault and Battery)

99.


100.

Defendant Hartman caused a violent, physical injury to by drugging, raping, and

sexually assaulting her.

101.

Defendant Hartman’s acts of drugging, raping, and sexually assaulting

intentionally caused her fear and apprehension of an unauthorized physical contact.

Hartman’s acts were insulting, unwanted, and humiliating and caused physical and

emotional injuries.

102.

Defendant Hartman’s acts of drugging, raping, and sexually assaulting

were unauthorized and done without necessity, privilege, or consent.

27

103.

Defendant Hartman’s actions constitute assault and battery within the meaning of

O.C.G.A. §§ 51-1-13, 51-1-14.

104.

As a direct and proximate cause of Hartman’s assault and battery, suffered

physical injuries, emotional distress, pain and suffering, lost past and future wages, and loss

of enjoyment of life.

105.











e) Disability;

f) Mental anguish;



28




106.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages, without limitation or cap, from Hartman

because his actions constitute willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, and

show an entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to

consequences. Defendant Hartman acted with specific intent to harm. Accordingly, Plaintiff is

entitled to recover uncapped and unlimited punitive damages from the Defendant in accordance

with the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury.

COUNT VII

(Litigation expenses against all Defendants)

107.


108.

Defendants’ actions evidence a species of bad faith, were and are stubbornly litigious,

and have caused Plaintiff undue expense. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to recover her necessary

expenses of litigation, including an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses required by

this action, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11, as well as any other statutory or common law basis.

29

NOTICE OF CLAIM

(OkCupid’s violations of the Fair Business Practices Act)

109.


110.

Plaintiff hereby provides notice to OkCupid Defendants of her intent to assert a claim

under the Fair Business Practices Act (“FBPA”). After 30 days of service of this notice, Plaintiff

will amend this Complaint to assert a FBPA claim.

111.

The purpose of the FBPA, which must be liberally construed, is “to protect consumers

and legitimate business enterprises from unfair or deceptive practices in the conduct of any trade

or commerce in part or wholly in the state.” O.C.G.A. § 10-1-391.

112.

OkCupid Defendants’ acts and omissions constitute unlawful acts and practices within

the meaning of the FBPA, O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-393. In particular, OkCupid Defendants falsely

represented to users that it takes “appropriate action” and “deals swiftly” with users who violate

the terms of use or use the site for unlawful purposes. OkCupid’s act of falsifying match

percentages also constitutes an unlawful act.

113.

relied on OkCupid’s false and negligent representations about its

response to complaints from users and its match percentages.

30

114.

As a direct and proximate cause of OkCupid’s violations of the FBPA, was

drugged, raped, and sexually assaulted, and suffered serious personal injuries, emotional distress,

pain and suffering, lost past and future wages, and loss of enjoyment of life.

115.











e) Disability;

f) Mental anguish;






31

116.

OkCupid Defendants’s violations of the FBPA were intentional and involve the breach of

a duty owed to the consuming public in general to accurately present its services, authorizing

Plaintiff to recover treble damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that:

(a) Process issue as provided by law;

(b) Plaintiff be awarded actual damages in amounts to be shown at trial from the

Defendants;

(c) Plaintiff be awarded all medical expenses in an amount to be proven through the

evidence at the time of trial;

(d) Plaintiff be awarded all general, special, compensatory, economic, and other

allowable damages, including punitive damages, in accordance with the enlightened conscience

of an impartial jury from the Defendants and as permitted under Georgia law;

(e) Plaintiff have a trial by jury; and

(f) Plaintiff have such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

TRIAL BY JURY IS HEREBY DEMANDED.

This 6th day of May, 2016.

[signatures on following page]

32

Respectfully submitted,

LAW & MORAN

/s/ Michael P. Walker Peter A. Law Georgia Bar No. 439655 Michael P. Walker Georgia Bar No. 954678

LAW & MORAN 563 Spring Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30308 (404) 814-370

ROSS & PINES, LLC

/s/ Noah H. Pines (by MPW w/e/p) Noah H. Pines Georgia Bar No. 580324

ROSS & PINES, LLC 5555 Glenridge Connector # 435 Atlanta, Georgia 30342 (404) 812-4300

THE SUMMERVILLE FIRM, LLC

/s/ Darren Summerville (by MPW w/e/p) Darren Summerville Georgia Bar No. 691978

THE SUMMERVILLE FIRM, LLC 400 Colony Square, Suite 2000 1201 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30361 (770) 635-0030

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Documents

IN THE STATE COURT OF FULTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA … · rape fantasy and listed it as “important” that a potential match also did not have such fantasies may have been falsely