Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of various healing arts professions and vocations by boards established within the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law prohibits a healing arts board or examining committee within the Department of Consumer Affairs from requiring, by regulation, an applicant for licensure or certification to be a member of, to be certified by, to be eligible to be certified or registered by, or otherwise meet the standards of a specified private voluntary association or professional society, except as provided.

This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to those provisions.

SENATE PRIVACY, DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION COMMITTEE

Senator Christopher Cabaldon, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 1390 (Author:Menjivar)

Version: March 25, 2026

Hearing Date: April 20, 2026

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: CK

SUBJECT

Online dating services: background checks

DIGEST

This bill requires online dating service providers to conduct criminal background checks on their California users and to flag those users who are on a sex offender registry or who have been convicted of specified crimes.^[1]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

According to research from the Pew Research Center, one in three adults in the United States has used an online dating website or application and over half of adults under 30 years of age have used one. There are a number of sites to choose from, with the most popular being Tinder, Match, Bumble, OkCupid, eharmony, Hinge, and Grindr. Despite the popularity of online dating services, serious concerns about safety persist. Polling shows that adults are split on their perception of the safety of using these services. Research and investigative reporting have provided evidence that these services can act as catalysts for sexual violence and abuse, both on and offline.

This bill seeks to address these issues by requiring online dating service providers to conduct criminal background checks on California users upon the creation of a profile. This must include a multistate and multijurisdiction criminal records locator or similar commercial nationwide database. Providers are then to affix a flag to the user’s profile if they are on a sex offender registry or have been convicted of specified crimes, including stalking or a hate crime.

This bill is sponsored by the Crime Victims Alliance. It is supported by the California District Attorneys Association. It is opposed by Technet and Internet.works. This bill passed out of the Senate Public Safety Committee on a vote of 4 to 2.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to furnish state summary criminal history information and, when specifically authorized, federal-level criminal history information upon a showing of compelling need to any of a series of specified entities, including a person or entity when access is expressly authorized by statute if the criminal history information is required to implement a statute or regulation that expressly refers to specific criminal conduct applicable to the subject person of the state summary criminal history information, and contains requirements or exclusions, or both, expressly based upon that specified criminal conduct. When information is furnished to assist an agency, officer, or official of state or local government, a public utility, or any other entity in fulfilling employment, certification, or licensing duties, the employer must follow specified restrictions. (Pen. Code § 11105.)
2. Existing law authorizes any local criminal justice agency as defined to compile local summary criminal history information and requires the local criminal justice agency to furnish this information to specified entities, including any person or entity when access is expressly authorized by statute when the local summary criminal history information is required to implement a statute, regulation, or ordinance that expressly refers to specific criminal conduct applicable to the subject person of the local summary criminal history information, and contains requirements or exclusions, or both, expressly based upon the specified criminal conduct.. (Pen. Code § 13300.)
3. Provides that a “transportation network company” (TNC) is an organization, including, but not limited to, a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, sole proprietor, or any other entity, operating in California that provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled application or platform to connect passengers with drivers using a personal vehicle. (Pub. Util. Code § 5431.)
4. Requires a TNC to conduct, or have a third party conduct, a local and national criminal background check for each participating driver that must include both of the following:
   1. The use of a multistate and multijurisdiction criminal records locator or other similar commercial nationwide database with validation.
   2. A search of the U.S. Department of Justice National Sex Offender Public website. (Pub. Util. Code § 5445.2.

This bill:

1. Requires an online dating service provider to conduct, or have a third party conduct, a local and national criminal background check for each California user that shall include both of the following:
   1. A multistate and multijurisdiction criminal records locator or other similar commercial nationwide database with validation.
   2. A search of the United States Department of Justice National Sex Offender Public Website.
2. Requires the background check to be completed upon the creation of a profile by a California user.
3. Requires a provider to place a flag on a California user’s profile if the user meets any of the following criteria:
   1. The user is currently registered on the United States Department of Justice National Sex Offender Public Website.
   2. The user has been convicted of any of a series of specified offenses within the previous seven years, including kidnapping, domestic violence, and human trafficking.
   3. The user has been convicted of any offense committed in another jurisdiction that includes all of the elements of any of the above offenses.
4. Defines the relevant terms, including:
   1. “California user” means a user who submits a California ZIP Code as part of their registration with an online dating service provider.
   2. “Flag” means a conspicuous notation denoting that a California user has a conviction for a criminal offense described in this chapter that is visible to other users who view that California user’s profile.
   3. “Online dating service provider” means a person or entity predominantly engaged in the business of offering an online dating service.
   4. “Online dating service” means a dating, matrimonial, or social referral service offered primarily online, including by means of a website or a mobile application.

COMMENTS

1. The risks of online dating

Online dating platforms like Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, and Match have revolutionized how people meet, but they carry real safety risks. A recent report highlights some concerns about online dating websites and apps:

When a young woman in Denver met up with a smiling cardiologist she matched with on the dating app Hinge, she had no way of knowing that the company behind the app had already received reports from two other women who accused him of rape.

She met the 34-year-old doctor with green eyes and thinning hair at Highland Tap & Burger, a sports bar in a trendy neighborhood. It went well enough that she accepted an invitation to go back to his apartment. As she emerged from his bathroom, he handed her a tequila soda.

What transpired over the next 24 hours, according to court testimony, reads like every person’s dating app nightmare.

After sipping the drink, the woman started to lose control. Her memory blurred. She fell to the ground, and the man started to film her. He put her in a headlock, kissing her forehead; she struggled to free herself but managed to grab her things and leave. He followed her out the door, holding her shoes and trying to force her back inside, but she was able to call an Uber, vomiting in the car on the way home.

She woke up at home, soaking wet on her bathroom floor, the key to her house still in her door. She continued vomiting for hours. When she came to, she reported the assault to Hinge.

Hinge is one of more than a dozen dating apps owned by Match Group. The $8.5 billion global conglomerate also owns brands like Tinder (the world’s most popular dating app), OkCupid, and Plenty of Fish. Match Group controls half of the world’s online dating market, operates in 190 countries, and facilitates meetups for millions of people.

Match Group’s official safety policy states that when a user is reported for assault, “all accounts found that are associated with that user will be banned from our platforms.”

So why, on the night of Jan. 25, 2023, was Stephen Matthews still on the app? Just four days before, Match Group had been alerted when another woman reported him for rape. A little more than a week later, he was reported for rape again. This time, the survivor went to the police.

None of these women knew that the company had known about his violent behavior for years. He was first reported on Sept. 28, 2020. By then, Match Group’s safety policy was already in place.

Even after a police report, it took nearly two months for Matthews to be arrested — the only thing that got him off the apps. By then, at least 15 women would eventually report that Matthews had raped or drugged them. Nearly every one of them had met him on dating apps run by Match Group.^[2]

Many place some of the blame on the fact that most platforms do not conduct comprehensive background checks on users. This means that individuals with serious criminal histories, including those convicted of sexual assault, domestic violence, or fraud, can create profiles without disclosing their past. Predators often exploit the anonymity these apps provide, using fake or misleading profiles to groom and manipulate potential victims, sometimes escalating to physical danger when meetings occur in person, as seen above and in a recent case where a man committed several murders of men he met on dating sites.^[3] A particularly alarming concern is that registered sex offenders are not systematically screened out. Users may also encounter romance scammers who build emotional connections over weeks or months before defrauding victims of significant sums of money. As the Federal Trade Commission puts it:

You meet someone special on a dating website or app. Soon they want to email, call, or message you off the platform. They say it’s true love, but they live far away — maybe for work or because they’re in the military. Then they start asking for money. Maybe it’s for a plane ticket to visit you. Or emergency surgery. Or something else urgent.

Romance scammers create fake profiles on dating sites and apps or contact you through popular social media sites like Instagram or Facebook. The scammers strike up a relationship with you to build up trust, sometimes talking or chatting several times a day. Then, they make up a story and ask for money.^[4]

This bill seeks to address this by requiring online dating service providers to conduct, or have a third party conduct, specified criminal background checks on all California users upon creation of a profile. This includes a search of the National Sex Offender Public Website and a multistate and multijurisdiction criminal records locator or other similar commercial nationwide database with validation. This is modeled after the laws requiring TNC companies to conduct such criminal background checks on their drivers.

If a California user, a person who submits a California Zip Code as part of their registration, is found to have a criminal conviction for specified crimes, including kidnapping or stalking, the provider is required to place a flag on the user’s profile that is visible to other users.

According to the author:

In today's modern dating world, online dating has become increasingly popular with dating apps being a primary choice for many people to meet, interact, and build relationships. While dating apps have grown in reach and influence, so has the evidence showing that platforms have failed to keep pace with the safety standards their users reasonably expect. While some platforms include in their terms of service that users are not authorized to use their platforms if they have been convicted of violent crimes, their terms go on to make clear that they do not conduct criminal background checks or inquire into the backgrounds of their users. SB 1390 is designed to close that gap. By requiring dating platforms to conduct criminal background checks at registration and flag users with convictions related to violent felonies, assault, hate crimes, domestic violence, and sexual violence, this bill ensures that online dating platforms provide users with a safe space to swipe.

Crime Victims Alliance, the sponsor of the bill, writes:

In order to provide greater protections to the millions of users of these apps and to reduce the victimization rates for these users, SB 1390 would require online dating service providers to conduct criminal background checks on all California users and flag the profiles of users with convictions related to domestic violence, sexual violence, hate crimes, assault, battery, or a violent felony.

The online dating app industry is a multi-billion dollar industry worldwide and it is estimated that the online dating industry generated nearly $1.5 billion dollars in the United States alone in 2024, and that figure is expected to keep increasing for the foreseeable future.

The online dating industry has developed and evolved in recent years growing from a fringe to mainstream approach to meeting partners. The industry has been lauded for alleviating practical and spatial barriers to relationship initiation; providing access to a greater number and variety of partners, especially among socially marginalized groups; and providing users with a greater sense of confidence and sense of control to meeting romantic connections. As the industry has grown it has also become extremely profitable. While these are all good things, there has been a growing body of research that suggests the benefits of dating apps comes with a growing risk of dangers.

The proliferation of sexual violence accomplished through the use of digital technology has become so prevalent that it has a name used by researchers – “Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence.” Technology-facilitated sexual violence is defined as, “a range of criminal, civil, or otherwise harmful sexually aggressive and harassing behaviors that are perpetrated with the aid or use of communication technologies.”

1. Concerns with this approach

Some concerns have been raised with this approach. While mandatory criminal background checks for online dating platforms may seem like an intuitive safety solution, the practical and ethical drawbacks are substantial. First, verifying the true identity of online users is a significant logistical hurdle as platforms would need to collect government-issued ID or Social Security information to run accurate checks, yet there is no foolproof way to ensure a person is who they claim to be, and determined bad actors could still use stolen identities to circumvent the system entirely. It is difficult to determine who is truly on the other side of the screen.

Second, requiring users to submit sensitive personal data like full legal names, dates of birth, and identification numbers creates enormous privacy risks, as that data becomes a high-value target for hackers and data breaches, potentially exposing millions of people to identity theft. Third, criminal databases are far from perfect. Records can contain errors, mix-ups between people with similar names, or outdated information, meaning an innocent person could be falsely flagged as a convicted criminal, causing serious reputational harm, emotional distress, and potential loss of employment or relationships with little practical recourse, not to mention potential liability exposure for the providers. Fourth, and perhaps most insidiously, such a system could breed a dangerous false sense of security among users. A clean background check only reflects documented convictions, meaning it would miss first-time offenders, crimes committed in foreign jurisdictions, expunged records, and individuals whose charges were reduced or dismissed, potentially leading people to lower their guard around someone who still poses a real threat.

Technet, writing in opposition, highlights some of these concerns:

Operational Concerns

From an operational standpoint, the bill is not feasible. Conducting accurate, real-time, multijurisdictional background checks at scale requires identity verification, record reconciliation, and legal interpretation across various jurisdictions. Dating app platforms would be forced to build or procure costly compliance systems and make complex determinations about whether out-of-state offenses meet California legal standards. This would create a legally intensive process that even trained professionals may struggle to execute with precision.

Legal Liabilities

Equally concerning, SB 1390 creates significant and unavoidable legal liability. The bill requires dating app platforms to publicly “flag” users based on background check results, but those checks may rely on imperfect data and matching systems. Unless a user’s full name, date of birth, social security number, residential address, and valid government issued identification are collected to confirm identity, relying on only a name or limited personal information for a background check can lead to misidentification. Individuals with common or similar names are especially vulnerable to such errors. If a platform incorrectly attributes a criminal record to a user and displays that information on their profile, it is effectively publishing a false statement of fact to third parties (other users of the dating app platform). This exposes the platforms to serious defamation liability and risks causing irreparable harm to individuals’ reputations. The bill provides no clear standards for verification, nor does it establish a meaningful process for users to challenge or correct inaccurate information before it is publicly displayed.

Additionally, to run a proper and accurate background check, such high level and sensitive information would need to be collected as mentioned. This introduces a separate and serious concern: privacy. To comply with the bill and be accurate, dating app platforms would need to collect and store highly sensitive personal data that is far beyond what is typically required to use a dating service, creating significant data security risks and raising concerns about the overcollection of personal information. Users would effectively be required to submit deeply personal identifying information simply to participate on a dating app platform.

Writing in opposition, Internet.Works California highlights some privacy concerns:

While well-intentioned, SB 1390 would fundamentally undermine access to online dating services by requiring criminal background checks for every California user at sign-up and imposing permanent public flags on user profiles. In doing so, it misunderstands a core reason millions of Californians use these platforms: the ability to connect, explore, and build relationships with a degree of privacy and control.

For many users, that privacy is not a luxury—it is essential. Online dating provides a space for individuals exploring their sexual identity, re-entering the dating world after trauma, or navigating sensitive personal circumstances. Others simply value discretion and do not want to be placed on a government-adjacent “list” or “registry” as a condition of participation. SB 1390 would deter these users from engaging at all, cutting off access to a primary way people form relationships today.

In response to these concerns, the author may wish to consider amending this bill to instead require reporting mechanisms for users to report inappropriate conduct to online dating service providers in order for them to conduct investigations and take necessary action. This would mitigate the privacy and operability concerns.

Writing in support, the California District Attorneys Association argues:

According to the Pew Research Center, dating applications have become widely used by tens of millions of Americans, including 48% of adults under 30. Despite the popularity and profit of these platforms, too many users have faced violence from individuals they encountered online. Studies show alarming rates of sexual assault, harassment, and other violent incidents linked to online dating apps. While some private companies have implemented voluntary safety features or partnered with nonprofit organizations to offer limited services, these efforts remain insufficient and inconsistent across the industry.

By requiring dating service providers to identify users with convictions for domestic violence, sexual violence, hate crimes, assault, battery, or other violent felonies, SB 1390 establishes a critical safeguard that aligns with our ongoing mission to prevent victimization before it occurs. Requiring a visible flag on a profile belonging to an individual with such convictions offers users meaningful information and increases transparency—empowering individuals to make informed decisions about their safety.

SUPPORT

Crime Victims Alliance (sponsor)
California District Attorneys Association

OPPOSITION

Internet.works

Technet

RELATED LEGISLATION

SB 53 (Leyva, Ch. 504, Stats. 2022) provides a cause of action against a person that knowingly sends obscene material, as defined, that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is unsolicited; and provides for civil penalties for violations of this bill.

AB 2010 (Cunningham, 2020) would have prescribed requirements for an online dating service in connection with users who are banned from the service because the person may have used a false identity or may have posed a significant risk of attempting to obtain money from, or provide money to, another user through fraudulent means. It would have required the service to send a specified notice to a California user known to have previously received and responded to an onsite message from a banned user. It would have required the online dating service to establish a procedure by which a banned user may challenge the user’s ban, and require the service to take corrective action if a banned user provides persuasive evidence that the ban was not reasonable. AB 2010 died in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Public Safety (Ayes 4, Noes 2)

**************

1. This analysis reflects amendments committed to in the Senate Public Safety Committee that will be taken in this Committee. ↑

2. Emily Elena Dugdale & Hanisha Harjani, Dating App Cover-Up: How Tinder, Hinge, and Their Corporate Owner Keep Rape Under Wraps (February 13, 2025) The Markup, https://themarkup.org/investigations/2025/02/13/dating-app-tinder-hinge-cover-up. All internet citations are current as of April 13, 2026. ↑

3. James Queally, Online dating murder suspect lured men into brutal robberies, L.A. County prosecutors allege (September 8, 2025) Los Angeles Times, https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-09-08/inglewood-dating-app-fatal-robberies-charges. ↑

4. What To Know About Romance Scams (August 2022) FTC, https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/what-know-about-romance-scams. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 1390 Hearing Date: April 14, 2026

Subject: Online dating services: background checks

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: AB 1289 (Cooper), Ch. 740, Stats. 2016

Support: Unknown

Opposition: None known

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to require an online dating service provider to conduct, or have a third party conduct, a criminal background check for each California user; require the background check to be completed upon the creation of a profile by a California user; and require an online dating service provider to place a flag on a California user’s profile if the user has specified criminal convictions or is on the national sex offender registry.

Existing law requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to maintain state summary criminal history information. (Pen. Code, § 11105, subd. (a)(1).)

Existing law requires DOJ to furnish state summary criminal history information to specified entities, if needed in the course of their duties, including the courts of the state; peace officers, as defined; district attorneys of the state; prosecuting city attorneys; city attorneys pursuing civil gang injunctions, drug abatement actions, or pursuing gun violence restraining orders; probation officers of the state; parole officers of the state; a public defender or attorney of record when representing a person in proceedings upon a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon; a public defender or attorney of record when representing a person in a criminal case; any agency, officer, or official of the state if the criminal history information is required to implement a statute or regulation that expressly refers to specific criminal conduct applicable to the subject person of the state summary criminal history information, and contains requirements or exclusions, or both, expressly based upon that specified criminal conduct; any city or county, city and county, district, or any officer or official if access is needed in order to assist that agency, officer, or official in fulfilling employment, certification, or licensing duties, and if the access is specifically authorized by the city council, board of supervisors, or governing board of the city, county, or district if the criminal history information is required to implement a statute,

ordinance, or regulation that expressly refers to specific criminal conduct applicable to the

subject person of the state summary criminal history information, and contains requirements or exclusions, or both, expressly based upon that specified criminal conduct; any person or entity when access is expressly authorized by statute if the criminal history information is required to implement a statute or regulation that expressly refers to specific criminal conduct applicable to the subject person of the state summary criminal history information, and contains requirements or exclusions, or both, expressly based upon that specified criminal conduct; health officers of a city, county, city and county, or district when in the performance of their official duties preventing the spread of communicable diseases; any managing or supervising correctional officer of a county jail or other county correctional facility; an officer providing conservatorship investigations; a person authorized to conduct a guardianship investigation; among others. (Pen. Code, § 11105, subd. (b).)

Existing law authorizes DOJ to furnish state summary criminal history information and, when specifically authorized, federal-level criminal history information upon a showing of compelling need to any of several specified agencies, provided that when information is furnished to assist an agency, officer, or official of state or local government, a public utility, or any other entity in fulfilling employment, certification, or licensing duties, the employer must follow restrictions listed in the Labor Code. (Pen. Code, § 11105, subd. (c).)

Existing law authorizes any local criminal justice agency as defined to compile local summary criminal history information and requires the local criminal justice agency to furnish this information to specified entities. (Pen. Code, § 13300.)

Existing law provides that a “transportation network company” (TNC) is an organization, including, but not limited to, a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, sole proprietor, or any other entity, operating in California that provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled application or platform to connect passengers with drivers using a personal vehicle. (Pub. Util. Code, § 5431, subd. (c).)

Existing law requires a TNC to conduct, or have a third party conduct, a local and national criminal background check for each participating driver that must include both of the following:

• The use of a multistate and multijurisdiction criminal records locator or other similar commercial nationwide database with validation.
• A search of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) National Sex Offender Public website. (Pub. Util. Code, § 5445.2, subd. (a)(1).)

Existing law prohibits a TNC from contracting with, employing, or retaining a driver if the driver

meets either of the following criteria:

• Is currently registered on the U.S. DOJ National Sex Offender Public website.
• Has been convicted of any of the following offenses: a violent felony, human trafficking, igniting an explosive or committing arson with the intent of terrorizing another, possession or manufacture of an weapon of mass destruction, knowingly threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction, or possession of a restricted biological agent. (Pub. Util. Code, § 5445.2, subd. (a)(2).)

Existing law prohibits a TNC from contracting with, employing, or retaining a driver if the driver has been convicted of any of the following offenses within the previous seven years:

• Misdemeanor assault or battery.
• A domestic violence offense.
• Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• Intimidating a voter, various bribery offenses, extortion, false impersonation, theft, or grand theft. (Pub. Util. Code, § 5445.2, subd. (a)(3).)

Existing law provides that the restrictions related to prior convictions apply with respect to a conviction of any offense committed in another jurisdiction that includes all of the elements of any of the offenses described or defined above. (Pub. Util. Code, § 5445.2, subd. (a)(4).)

Existing law provides that existing law related to a TNC contracting with, employing, or retaining a driver, shall not be interpreted to prevent a transportation network company from imposing additional standards. (Pub. Util. Code, § 5445.2, subd. (a)(5).)

Existing law provides that a TNC that violates, or fails to comply with, the provisions above is subject to a penalty of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000 for each offense. (Pub. Util. Code, § 5445.2, subd. (b).)

Existing law authorizes, notwithstanding existing law, an investigative consumer reporting agency to furnish an investigative consumer report to a TNC about a person seeking to become a participating driver, regardless of whether the participating driver is to be an employee or an independent contractor of the transportation network company. (Pub. Util. Code, § 5445.2, subd. (c)(1).)

Existing law provides that the prohibition on a consumer reporting agency from furnishing specified items including records of arrest, indictment, information, misdemeanor complaint, or conviction of a crime that is more than 7 years old, does not apply to an investigative consumer report furnished to a TNC. (Pub. Util. Code, § 5445.2, subd. (c)(2).)

Existing law requires that an investigative consumer reporting agency only furnish an investigative report for specified purposes, including that it is intended to be used for information for employment purposes. (Civ. Code, § 1786.12, subd. (d).)

Existing law prohibits an investigative consumer reporting agency from furnishing specified items, including records of arrest, indictment, information, misdemeanor complaint, or conviction of a crime that is more than 7 years old. Prohibits this information from being reported if at any time it is learned that, in the case of a conviction, a full pardon has been granted or, in the case of an arrest, indictment, information, or misdemeanor complaint, a conviction did not result, except as specified. (Civ. Code, § 1786.18, subd. (a)(7).)

Existing law enumerates the felonies considered “violent.” Provides that the following are violent felonies: murder or voluntary manslaughter; mayhem; rape, as defined; sodomy, as defined; oral copulation, as defined; lewd or lascivious act, as defined; any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life; any felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury on a person other than an accomplice; any robbery; arson; sexual penetration, as defined; attempted murder; explosion or attempted explosion of a destructive device with the intent to commit murder; explosion or ignition of any destructive device or any explosive which causes bodily injury to any person; explosion of a destructive device which causes death or great bodily injury; kidnapping; assault with the intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy or oral copulation; continuous sexual abuse of a child; carjacking, as defined; rape or sexual penetration, in concert; extortion which would constitute a felony violation of the gang statute; threats to victims or witnesses which would constitute a felony violation of the gang statute; any first degree burglary; use of a firearm during the commission of specified crimes; possession, development, production, and transfers of weapons of mass destruction; and rape, wherein it is pleaded and proved that the defendant caused the intoxication by administering a controlled substance to the victim without their consent and with the intent to sexually assault the victim. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c).)

Existing law enumerates the felonies considered “serious.” Provides that the following are serious felonies: murder or voluntary manslaughter; mayhem; rape; sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, or threat or fear of bodily injury; oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace or threat or fear of bodily injury; lewd act with child under fourteen years of age; any felony punishable by death or life imprisonment; any felony in which defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice or personally uses a firearm; attempted murder; assault with intent to commit rape or robbery; assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer; assault by a life prisoner on a non-inmate; assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate; arson; exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure; exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing bodily injury, great bodily injury, or mayhem; exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder; burglary of an inhabited dwelling; robbery or bank robbery; kidnapping; holding a hostage by an inmate; attempt to commit a crime punishable by life imprisonment or death; any felony where defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon; sale or furnishing heroin, cocaine, PCP, or methamphetamine to a minor; forcible penetration with a foreign object; grand theft involving a firearm; any gang-related felony; assault with the intent to commit mayhem or specified sex offenses; maliciously throwing acid or flammable substances; witness intimidation; assault with a deadly weapon or firearm or assault on a peace officer or firefighter; assault with a deadly weapon on a public transit employee; criminal threats; discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, vehicle, or aircraft; commission of rape or sexual penetration in concert; continuous sexual abuse of a child; shooting from a vehicle; any attempt to commit a “serious” felony other than assault; any violation of the 10 years, 20 years, 25 years to life gun law; possession or use of any weapon of mass destruction; human trafficking of a minor, except as provided; and any conspiracy to commit a “serious” felony. (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (c).)

This bill includes the following definitions:

• “California user” means a user who submits a California ZIP Code as part of their registration with an online dating service provider.
• “Flag” means a conspicuous notation denoting that a California user has a conviction for a criminal offense described in the provisions of this bill that is visible to other users who view that California user’s profile.
• “Online dating service” means a dating, matrimonial, or social referral service offered primarily online, including by means of an internet website or a mobile application.
• “Online dating service provider” means a person or entity predominantly engaged in the business of offering an online dating service.
• “Profile” means a description of a user that an online dating service provider makes available to other users to view for purposes of the online dating service.
• “User” means an individual who submits to an online dating service provider, or related third party, personal information to register for a profile to use an online dating service offered by the online dating service provider.

This bill requires an online dating service provider to conduct, or have a third party conduct, a local and national criminal background check for each California user that includes both of the following:

• A multistate and multijurisdiction criminal records locator or other similar commercial nationwide database with validation.
• A search of the U.S. DOJ National Sex Offender Public Website.

This bill requires the background check to be completed upon the creation of a profile by a California user.

This bill requires an online dating service provider to place a flag on a California user’s profile if the user meets any of the following criteria:

• The California user is currently registered on the U.S. DOJ National Sex Offender Public Website.
• The California user has been convicted of any of the following offenses:
  • A violent felony, as defined.
  • Assault or battery, as defined.
  • Any offense involving domestic violence.
  • A hate crime, as defined.
• The California user has been convicted of any offense committed in another jurisdiction that includes all of the elements of any of the offenses described or defined above.

COMMENTS

1. Need For This Bil

According to the author:

In today’s modern dating world, online dating has become increasingly popular with dating apps being a primary choice for many people to meet, interact, and build relationships. While dating apps have grown in reach and influence, so has the evidence showing that platforms have failed to keep pace with the safety standards their users reasonably expect. While some platforms include in their terms of service that users are not authorized to use their platforms if they have been convicted of violent crimes, their terms go on to make clear that they do not conduct criminal background checks or inquire into the backgrounds of their users. SB 1390 is designed to close that gap. By requiring dating platforms to conduct criminal background checks at registration and flag users with convictions related to violent felonies, assault, hate crimes, domestic violence, and sexual violence, this bill ensures that online dating platforms provide users with a safe space to swipe.

1. Prevalence of Online Dating

Over the past thirty years, online dating has become extremely common in the U.S. Historically website-based, app-based online dating has become popular over the last 15 years. Researchers have identified several trends in online dating. A 2023 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 30% of adults reported that they had ever used a dating website or app.^[1] Not surprisingly, online dating is more common among younger adults than among older adults with approximately half of those under 30 (53%) reporting that they had ever used a dating site or app, compared with 37% of those ages 30 to 49, 20% of those 50 to 64, and 13% of those 65 and older.^[2] The survey noted the following demographic information about users of online dating platforms:

Men are somewhat more likely than women to have tried online dating (34% vs. 27%), as are those with at least some college education when compared with those with a high school education or less.

Adults who have never been married are much more likely than married adults to report having used online dating sites or apps (52% vs. 16%). Adults who are currently living with a partner (46%) or who are divorced, separated, or widowed (36%) are also more likely to have tried online dating than married adults.

There are no statistically significant differences in the shares of adults who report ever using an online dating platform by race or ethnicity: Similar shares of White, Black, Hispanic and Asian adults report ever having done so.^[3]

Notably, one in 10 partnered adults (i.e., individuals who are married, living with a partner, or in a committed romantic relationship) met their current significant other through a dating site or app.^[4] For partnered adults under 30, that percentage is even higher with one in five reporting that they met their current partner through a dating site or app.^[5]

Of relevance to this bill, the Pew survey reported that a majority of those surveyed support requiring background checks before someone can create a profile.^[6] The share of U.S. adults who said online dating is generally a very or somewhat safe way to meet people has decreased slightly since 2019, from 53% to 48%, and women are more likely than men to say online dating is not too safe or not at all safe.^[7]

1. Prior Legislation Requiring Criminal Background Checks for TNC Drivers

A decade ago, the Legislature enacted AB 1289 (Cooper), Chapter 740, Statutes of 2016, which required a TNC to conduct, or have a third party conduct, a local and national criminal background check for each participating driver. AB 1289 prohibited a TNC from contracting with, employing, or retaining a driver if the person is currently registered on the U.S. DOJ National Sex Offender Public Website, or has been convicted of certain terrorism-related felonies or a violent felony. The bill also prohibited a TNC from contracting with, employing, or retaining a driver if the person has been convicted of any misdemeanor assault or battery, any domestic violence offense, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or any of a specified list of felonies within the previous 7 years. The legislation was introduced after “[the] District Attorneys in Los Angeles and San Francisco uncovered 25 participating TNC drivers with convictions for murder, assault, DUI, and other criminal offenses.” (Sen. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1289 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) as amended Jun. 21, 2016, p. 4.)

In addition to requiring criminal background checks for prospective TNC drivers, and prohibiting the contracting with, employment of, or retention of individuals with specified criminal histories, Public Utilities Code section 5445.2 established a civil fine of between $1,000-5,000 for each violation of its provisions.

1. Effect of This Bill

This bill is largely modeled after Public Utilities Code section 5445.2 and has two components. First, this bill requires an online dating service provider to conduct, or have a third party conduct, a criminal background check for each California user. The background check must be completed when the dating profile is created. Second, this bill requires an online dating service provider to place a flag on a California user’s profile if the user has specified criminal convictions or is on the national sex offender registry. The criminal offenses that would trigger the requirement that a user’s profile is flagged include: a violent felony, as defined in Penal Code section 667.5; an assault or battery; any offense involving domestic violence; or a hate crime.

The provisions in this bill differ from the provisions in Public Utilities Code section 5445.2 in two significant ways. Unlike Section 5445.2, this bill does not include an enforcement mechanism or penalty for violations of its provisions. In addition, this bill does not include a washout period for any of the criminal convictions that would result in an online profile being flagged. While Section 5445.2 requires the permanent prohibition of prospective TNC drivers with a conviction for a violent felony or terrorism-related offense, the prohibition on prospective TNC drivers with other criminal convictions is limited to convictions occurring in the prior seven years.

This bill raises several policy considerations. Public Utilities Code section 5445.2 is ultimately a consumer protection law and is designed to keep TNC riders safe from drivers. Because of the confined nature of a vehicle and the fact that the driver is in control of the vehicle, riders are inherently vulnerable to harms inflicted upon them by the driver. For example, a rider susceptible to harm if the driver is intoxicated, drives recklessly, or decides to kidnap them or physically harm them. Accordingly, the background check requirements of Public Utilities Code section 5445.2 are intended to weed out prospective drivers who may be more inclined to harm riders. In doing so, Section 5445.2 is intended to increase trust in the safety of TNCs. That is critical, particularly in areas in which there is limited public transit and walkability, and where individuals do not have access to drive a private vehicle.

This bill requires background checks for users of online dating services. There are some notable distinctions between the way online dating services and TNCs are utilized by consumers. While there may be benefits to requiring users of online dating services to undergo a criminal background check, it should be noted that meeting new people (whether through dating apps or organically) is inherently risky. However, arguably, online dating services do not necessarily produce the same level of vulnerability to individual consumers in the same way that utilizing a TNC does. For example, many people create online dating profiles but never interact with anyone (e.g., have an inactive profile, do not match with other users, etc.). Some may match with other users but never exchange messages or may exchange messages but never meet in person. For those who do meet in person, the initial date (or even first several dates) is often in a public setting which generally minimizes the risk of harm to an individual. Unlike TNCs which provide a critical service, particularly in light of the country’s public transit infrastructure and overall walkability, online dating services may offer a useful but not necessarily critical service in the same way or to the same degree.

Committee members may wish to consider whether the criminal offenses included in the bill that would trigger a user’s profile to be flagged are appropriate. Should any crimes be added or removed? What is meant by “any domestic violence offense”? The term is borrowed from Public Utilities Code section 5445.2 and is not defined in that code section or in this bill. Is “domestic violence offense” limited to convictions of Penal Code section 273.5 (felony domestic violence) or Penal Code section 243, subdivision (e) (misdemeanor domestic violence)? Many criminal acts could occur within the context of domestic violence (e.g., kidnapping, false imprisonment, stalking, sexual assault, making criminal threats, etc.). While some of these acts would be covered by the provisions of this bill because those offenses are included in the violent felony list, some would not be. For example, stalking, as defined in Penal Code section 646.9, is a wobbler, and even if charged as a felony, is not included on the violent felony list. The same is true for making a criminal threat, as defined in Penal Code section 422, and false imprisonment, as defined in Penal Code section 236. The Committee may wish to consider whether and how to define “any domestic violence offense.” With respect to the washout period, the Committee may wish to consider whether there should be a washout period for prior convictions that result in a flag on a user’s profile.

Given the inaccuracies sometimes contained in background check information supplied by commercial background check companies especially for individuals with common names, the Committee may wish to consider whether any type of criminal background check apart from one utilizing state and federal criminal history information should be authorized.

Finally, the Committee may wish to consider whether this bill should include civil penalties for an online dating service provider’s failure to comply with the requirements in this bill in order to disincentivize noncompliance.

-- END --

1. Vogels & McClain, Key findings about online dating in the U.S. (Feb. 2, 2023) </www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/>. ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

4. Vogels & McClain, supra. ↑

5. Ibid. ↑

6. Vogels & McClain, supra. ↑

7. Ibid. ↑