Facts

Tawkify, Inc. is a matchmaking-style dating service. Jeremy Stanfield purchased and paid for Tawkify's "6 Match Standard Client Package" to line up six dates. After two unsuccessful dates that were not to his liking, he cancelled the contract and demanded a full refund. Because Tawkify had already begun arranging Stanfield's third date, Tawkify refunded half of the contract price. After making further demands, Stanfield filed a lawsuit against Tawkify asserting that his contracted violated the California Dating Services Contracts Act (DSCA). Before Tawkify was served with the complaint, Tawkify refunded the entire balance of $3700. The time between Stanfield's initial request to cancel and receipt of the refund was forty days. Tawkify moved for summary judgment.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that his contract with defendant violated the DSCA because it failed to include three statutorily required clauses. Plaintiff contended that under Section 1694.2(e) of the DSCA, he was entitled to a refund and cancellation at any time. Plaintiff contended that because defendant violated the DSCA, defendant also violated the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all of the contentions. Defendant contended that it prioritized plaintiff's request and refunded him in full within 40 days. Defendant contended that it did not violate the DSCA because plaintiff is entitled to a pro-rated refund and was only entitled to refund for the services not received. Defendant contended that because plaintiff's DSCA claims fail, his Unlawful Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act also fails.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of defendant.