HARRISBURG – Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett announced that a civil lawsuit was filed against a popular dating service accused of falsely inflating the number of singles available for dating in its network and misrepresenting the success rate, costs and other key elements of its dating services.
The lawsuit follows an investigation into dozens of complaints from consumers throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. The suit seeks more than $65,000 in consumer restitution, civil penalties, forfeiture of profits and an injunction barring the defendants from operating until all restitution and fines are paid.
The Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer Protection office in Philadelphia filed the lawsuit against the following businesses and company officers: Great Expectations, formerly located at 150 S. Warner Road, King of Prussia; EllisKP LLC, doing business as Great Expectations, 37 Stratton Lane, Sewell, N.J.; John Jack Ellis Jr., individually, and as owner of Great Expectations, 37 Stratton Lane, Sewell, N.J.; G.E.K.P. LLC, doing business as Great Expectations,101 E. Bells Mill Road, Philadelphia; and Harold K. Cohen, individually, and as former owner of Great Expectations, King of Prussia.
The defendants are accused of violating Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Consumers filed complaints against Great Expectations former King of Prussia location that closed in June 2005.
Corbett said Great Expectations through 2006 used print, direct mail, radio, television, telemarketing and the Internet to promote and advertise it’s dating services. Those who responded to the ads were directed to make an appointment at one of the Great Expectations offices to discuss the program and enter into membership contracts. Consumers typically paid between $1,000 and $3,400 for their memberships.
According to the lawsuit, during the scheduled appointment, consumers claimed that the sales representatives gave positive statistics about potential matches and the availability of quality singles who meet consumers’ specifications. In some instances, the experience was described as “being a kid in a candy store.”
The suit states that consumers were told that “there are over 175,000 Great Expectation members nationwide, 4,000 members here, at this King of Prussia location alone. Our success rate is 70 percent … we had 300 marriages of members from our center last year alone!” The defendants’ representatives also claimed, “We have thousands of people who will meet your qualifications.” In reality, the number of singles available for dating and the number of marriages that resulted from those matches was substantially less than represented.
“Consumers paid significant sums of money for services and results that were grossly overstated and misrepresented,” Corbett said. “The biggest draw for singles joining a dating service is clearly the number of other singles in the dating network. We allege that potential clients were deceived about the defendants’ pool of available singles, creating false hopes about the odds of finding a match.”
Corbett said other complaints included claims that consumers were unable to use, without additional charge, the services and facilities of other Great Expectations offices around the U.S. as promised. Instead, those services depended on the type of membership package and privileges consumers purchased separately. Many said they were not informed of the policy at the time of sale. Those who wanted access to other facilities were required to pay additional charges or fees.
“Several consumers were told that everything was included in their initial payment only to discover that the initial price was for the bare minimum package that did not include photographs, Great Expectations Internet access and access to other regional Great Expectations member libraries,” Corbett said. “These services were indeed available at an additional cost to consumers.”
The defendants are also accused of telling consumers that they would receive invitations to member activities and social events that never occurred. In addition, they were promised quality, professional photography and videotaping services and received lesser quality products.
The lawsuit also claims that the defendants failed to provide consumers with the proper “notice of cancellation” and three day right of cancellation in their contracts as required by law for solicitations that came to consumers’ homes via mail or telephone.
Other alleged deceptions included claims that the company is a member of the Better Business Bureau. Consumers stated that the defendants had a framed BBB certificate on the wall of the room where they were shown promotion videos. In reality, the defendants have not been participating members of the BBB since August 2003, nor have they ever held a “satisfactory” rating with the BBB.
The lawsuit asks the court to require the defendants to:
— Pay more than $65,000 in restitution to consumers who filed complaints with the Office of Attorney General, plus pay full restitution to eligible consumers who come forward with proof of similar harm.
— Pay civil penalties of $1,000 per violation and $3,000 for each violation involving a consumer age 60 or older.
— Forfeit all profits that were derived as a result of the alleged illegal activities.
— Forfeit their right to conduct business pending payment of consumer restitution and civil penalties.
— Pay the commonwealth’s costs of investigation.
— Consumers who suspect that they are entitled to restitution in this case should file a complaint with the Bureau of Consumer Protection by calling 800-441-2555 in Pennsylvania or visiting www.attorneygeneral.gov.
Corbett thanked the Better Business Bureau of Eastern Pennsylvania for assisting in the investigation. The complaint was filed in Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. The case is being litigated by Deputy Attorney General Saverio P. Mirarchi of the Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer Protection in Philadelphia.