From www.examiner.com – These days being disappointed can be grounds for suing. A Brooklyn man sued Match.com on June 9 for inflicting “humiliation and disappointment” on date-seekers “who feel rejected when their e-mails get no reply.”

The New York Post reported that Sean McGinn stated that the popular matchmaking Web site dangles phony date bait by posting profiles of people who no longer subscribe to its $39.99-a-month service.

As a result, Mr. Lonelyhearts like him have been “defrauded” out of millions of dollars and countless hours spent sending heartfelt e-mails in vain, the 37-year-old TV producer says.

He claims that most members of Match.com — which has 86 million searches a month in the United States — are actually unavailable because they “are canceled subscribers or never subscribed at all,” according to his suit filed in Manhattan federal court.

The class-action complaint doesn’t state damages, but says they exceed $5 million.

McGinn is also demanding that the Internet’s biggest dating site “cease and desist its deceptive practices,” which he claims are “willfully causing emotional harm to the consumer and social harm to society at large.”

“Match’s policy causes severe emotional distress and anxiety for some [subscribers], including those who keep writing e-mails to one member after another and never hear back because he/she is writing to people who’ve canceled,” his suit says.

“Because the writer has no way of knowing this, he or she may experience profound personal anguish, suffering which is easily preventable by Match.”

The suit also alleges that “Match induces canceled members to log in . . . creating the appearance that inactive members are active” by sending bogus BlackBerry notifications that read, “Someone has winked back at you.”

Ironically, McGinn, according to his his lawyer “met someone he’s happy with” through the site.

“We’re not saying that Match doesn’t provide a valuable service, but they don’t have to misrepresent what they’re offering you,” attorney Norah Hart said.

About 15 other disgruntled Match.com users have joined the case, she said.

McGinn’s suit is the latest in a series of fraud allegations lodged against Dallas-based Match.com and other social-networking sites.

This is a sad commentary on how people meet each other these days and what their expectations are. Are we so spoiled rotten that we now sue for disappointment because we can’t get a date? If the Mr. McGinn has so little game that he can’t even get satisfaction out of a dating site, is that cause for taking them to court? Especially after he met someone he liked on the site? If a person is inherently undesirable and can’t meet people on their own, do they have the right to squeeze money out of a dating site for not solving all their problems and sending them the love of their life?

You might say, “They were misrepresenting themselves and he has a right to sue.” Really? If we sued every business and person for disappointing us, the courts would be backed up with cases for centuries. But if Mr. McGinn does win the $5,000,000, perhaps he will all of a sudden seem like the best catch in town.

From ABC News: When Barry, a Brooklyn man signed up for Match.com, he was optimistic, he perused profiles, wrote and sent messages and winks, and then he waited…and waited.

When replies failed to come, Barry who asked we not use his last name, thought something was fishy. After all, he is young, arguably handsome, and gainfully employed.

“It was really depressing,” Barry told ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

He came to believe that the Web site itself might be to blame for making him feel “undesirable and rejected” and that there might not be real people on the other end of all those messages.

He is not alone.

Barry is considering being part of a proposed class action lawsuit filed by another Brooklyn man Sean McGuinn who is claiming fraud against the online dating site.

In McGinn’s complaint, he alleges Match.com perpetrates fraud by returning inactive or canceled members in search results of seemingly dateable people.

He believes he was actually sending e-mails to ghosts of Match.com’s past.

Barry understands McGinn’s pain.

“I put a lot of time and effort into these subscribers, I feel they never existed,” Barry said. “You can find yourself staying up late at night waiting for e-mails that never come… its really sad.”

“With all due respect,” ABC’s Andrea Canning asked McGinn, “Do you think it could have been you? They just weren’t interested?

“Sure it’s possible,” Barry admitted.

But the lawsuit claims Match keeps profiles of canceled or inactive members on the site, creating false hope.

And McGinn’s attorney, Norah Hart, says she knows of other former Match members who were contacted after cancelling their subscriptions.

“They cancelled their subscriptions and then they still get e-mails from Match.”

She hopes to petition to have the suit raised to class-action status.

Match.com in a statement denied any wrongdoing. “The allegation that we would deceive our subscribers by encouraging them to connect with inactive members does not make sense and is contradicted by our 14-year record. ”

McGinn’s suit is not the first against Match.com. In 2005, the site was accused of having their own employees reply to e-mails to keep members subscribed. That case was thrown out.

In addition to a $39.99-a-month membership fee, McGinn bemoans in his suit the loss of his “time, labor, and emotional investment,” according to the complaint.