Background Checks a Growing Trend in the Online Dating Industry

By Michael Klazema on 1/15/2014

Over the past decade or two, online dating has become a massively significant piece of the United States relationship and marriage scene. Researchers have gone so far as to estimate that one in four couples meet online. Popular online dating services like eHarmony,, and OkCupid have even managed to turn the phenomenon into an incredibly sustainable business model.

With the growth of online dating has also come a corresponding increase in the number of predators who realize that they can use online dating services to find easy victims. When people meet online and set up an in-person date, they don’t really know who they are speaking with. The person on the other side of the internet connection could well be a kind and honest soul who is precisely who they made themselves out to be in their dating profile.

However, someone on a dating service could just as easily be lying about everything, from their interests to their identity, all in a ruse to harm other people – physically, financially, or both. Therefore, those who utilize dating services to meet potential mates are opening themselves to a reasonable level of risk by putting their name, their information, and their photograph online.

With this risk in mind, various sources have been working to make online dating services safer places for single people to mingle and interact. On one end, legislators have worked to tighten up the security for online dating sites. Last year, Illinois passed a new law – called the “Internet Dating Safety Act” – that requires online dating services to inform users on whether or not they conduct criminal background checks.

Numerous other states have instituted similar legislation of their own, all in an effort to increase the accountability of dating services. Since dating websites can provide predators with an incredibly efficient means of locating potential victims, states like Illinois believe that the websites should be required to monitor their customers to determine which ones are trustworthy and which ones are dangerous.

Perhaps in response to the online dating safety legislation movement, the number of dating service users that run makeshift background checks on potential mates has increased. According to a recent study by Washington’s Pew Research Center, about 30 percent of people active on dating services try to learn more about their potential matches before agreeing to in-person meetings. Pew’s findings indicate that these cautious people look for everything from a potential date’s relationship history to traces of criminal or sex offender history.

Users looking to cover all bases are best served by selecting dating sites that commit to running background checks on their members or offer an easy way for a member to request one. Vendors like offer comprehensive and instantaneous background screening options to dating sites, such as US OneSEARCH, which looks for signs of criminal active, and US Registered Offender OneSEARCH, which browses sex offender registries from around the country.


Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 20 Employers who use E-Verify must follow the proper steps and procedures when they receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” from either the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security. Failure to follow the proper procedures can cost employers both time and money. 
  • March 20

    Four Department of Commerce employees are out after their background checks resulted in security clearance denials. All four had worked high-ranking positions for months despite incomplete background checks.

  • March 15 As more states legalize the recreational use of cannabis, they contend with the emergence of new industries surrounding marijuana cultivation and production. 
  • March 14 In most cases, it is easy to determine where an issue might show up on a pre-employment background check. Citations for traffic violations or reckless driving charges will appear on a motor vehicle record check. Verdicts in a civil court case will show on a civil court background check. And criminal convictions—from petty theft to violent felonies—show up on criminal background checks.
  • March 13 How many years back do employment background checks go? This question can have multiple different answers depending on the situation.
  • March 13 A new bill in Florida would require landlords of apartment complexes to present tenants with verifications of employee background checks to give them peace of mind the people working in and around their homes are trustworthy.
  • March 08 Police officers working with the University of Texas at Arlington recently arrested a man who had avoided police capture on a warrant out of Oregon for nearly two decades. The man, whose real name is Daniel Charles Ray Hanson, spent those 17 years using a variety of fake names and identification documents to move around the country, often engaging with educational institutions under false pretenses. Police say Hanson regularly went by at least three different aliases. He sports a rap sheet that stretches back to an arson conviction in 1995. 
  • March 07

    The Future of EEOC Guidance in Texas Is Up in the Air

    The EEOC issued guidance in 2012 warning employers about the dangers of enforcing categorical policies to bar candidates with criminal histories. That guidance is not enforceable in Texas thanks to a recent court ruling.

  • March 05 Vermont is the latest state to restrict employers’ access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants. 
  • March 01 In an age of "industry disruptors" turning established business models on their heads, companies such as Uber and Lyft rely on a unique workforce of individuals outside the traditional employer-employee context. Uber calls them "partners" while other businesses refer to them as "independent contractors," the official classification these individuals use for tax purposes. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) revealed they had warned a business, Postmates, for misclassifying their staff as independent contractors. In the NLRB's determination, these individuals were employees.