A Los Angeles entertainment executive who says she was sexually assaulted by a man she met on Match.com filed a lawsuit Wednesday asking that the popular dating site start screening its members for sexual predators. 
 
 Attorney Mark L. Webb, who represents the woman identified in the lawsuit only as Jane Doe, said he will ask a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge for a temporary injunction barring the site from signing up more members until his client’s demands are met. 
 
 “They are a very powerful and successful online dating service, and they have the means to do this,” Webb said. 
 
 Officials with Match.com could not be reached for comment late Wednesday. But in a statement to KABC-TV Channel 7 last week, officials that they provide safety tips on the website and warn members that they are responsible for screening the people they meet. 
 
 "While incidents like this one between individuals who meet on Match.com are extremely rare, it doesn't make them any less horrifying," the statement said. 
 
 Webb described his client as an Ivy League graduate who works in film and television. He said she met her alleged assailant last year at Urth Cafe in West Hollywood. He seemed charming and she agreed to see him again. After the second date, however, he allegedly followed her home and forced himself on her, Webb said. 
 
 "This horrific ordeal completely blindsided me because I had considered myself savvy about online dating safety," the woman said in a statement released through her attorney last week. "Things quickly turned into a nightmare, beyond my control." 
 
 After the man left, the woman went online and learned that he had been convicted of several counts of sexual battery. Charges are pending in the Match.com case, Webb said. 
 
 The attorney said his client wants Match.com to check members’ names against public sex offender registries. “It’s not a guarantee,” he said. “But don’t you think something is better than nothing?” 
 
 ALSO: 
 
 Man arrested in wife's death -- 30 years after the fact 
 
 Admissions suspension lifted for UCLA Islamic studies program 
 
 -- Alexandra Zavis ||||| Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 Never mind whether your date is smart or good-looking. How do you know you aren’t flirting with a felon? 
 
 For a small fee, a nascent crop of companies wants to help you find out by running background checks on the potential flames you encounter on Match.com, eHarmony or any of the nation’s nearly 1,500 dating Web sites. 
 
 At the same time, at least two states, New York and New Jersey, have begun regulating Internet dating sites, and legal experts say they believe changes to the liability laws that protect such sites are on the horizon. 
 
 And you thought your mother was the only one who wanted to vet your love life. 
 
 The focus on background screenings comes as some 20 million Americans are using dating sites, more than double the number five years ago, according to the market research firm IBISWorld. While they are finding casual dates and even love, they are also encountering married people pretending to be single or, worse, sexual predators and convicted felons. 
 
 No one has put a number on how much violence stems from dating sites, according to groups that keep track of rape and other violent crimes, like the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Victims of Crime. 
 
 Yet plenty of crime stories begin with two people skimming each other’s online dating profiles. Consider the widely reported case of Jeffrey Marsalis, a serial rapist in Philadelphia who met his victims on Match.com. 
 
 Such perils have been around since the dawn of the Internet, an ideal medium for complex cover-ups. But now that online dating is a billion-dollar industry, state officials, public safety advocates and enterprising businesses are calling for further safeguards. 
 
 Whether it is possible, however, to effectively screen people and make sites more truthful is unclear. After all, members are not always honest about their age and weight. 
 
 “What we want to do is provide some degree of safety,” said Robert Buchholz, a retired New York State Police captain who, with Andrew J. Scott, a former police chief in Boca Raton, Fla., founded MyMatchChecker.com, a Web site that went live in April, enabling people to request background checks on anyone they have met on a dating site. 
 
 Mr. Buchholz and Mr. Scott, who each have more than 30 years of law enforcement experience, said that having daughters inspired them to try to make online dating safer. Their company offers a basic background search for $9.95. 
 
 In addition to Web sites, a flurry of mobile phone apps aim to make background checks as quick and easy as ordering a pizza: Just plug in a couple of facts like a name and birth date. ValiMate, the creator of the Instant National Criminal Search app, even allows users to send the results of the check to a friend for added safety. 
 
 Date Check, from Intelius, encourages users to “look up before you hook up.” The app is marketed to women who want to perform a background check on would-be Romeos “in the time it takes to redo your lip gloss.” (Industry professionals say that predators are usually men.) 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 State officials are also pushing for safer Internet dating. A law that takes effect this month in New York State, the Internet Dating Safety Act, requires sites to post common-sense safety tips, like “meet in a public place.” 
 
 Assemblywoman Audrey I. Pheffer, a sponsor of the Internet law, said that it grew out of her realization that online dating had become ubiquitous, even among people she “never dreamed” would pursue romance online. 
 
 Some states have considered similar legislation but ultimately rejected it. New York’s law is like one passed in 2008 by New Jersey, which also requires dating sites with a membership fee to inform users whether they do criminal background checks (most do not). 
 
 Such legislation was championed by True.com, one of the first major online dating companies to screen members to determine if they are married, felons or sexual offenders (about 2 percent of those who try to sign up are rejected, they said). Ruben Buell, the company’s president, said that the type of checks it conducted were inexpensive. “You’re talking pennies per check.” 
 
 Still, most online dating companies question whether such checks can be effective. They contend that because state and county databases are incomplete, the checks give daters a false sense of security. Even advocates of criminal screenings concede that they are imperfect because the databases vary in quality and availability. Some counties, for instance, do not keep digital records. Others do not provide data about sex offenders. 
 
 “If I really knew that there was great ability for us to not let anyone on the site that shouldn’t be on the site, I would do it,” said Mandy Ginsberg, the general manager and executive vice president of Match.com. Background checks, she said, might lead daters to think everyone they encounter on the sites is safe. (Ms. Pheffer said she originally wanted background checks but decided against them for the same reason.) 
 
 Critics also point out that companies that conduct background screenings are not necessarily perfect. Some have mishandled information. Another concern involves mobile apps, which can provide personal information to people who may abuse it. 
 
 Braden Cox, a policy counsel for NetChoice, a group that advocates for Internet companies, said that background screenings were well intentioned but that most could be thwarted. 
 
 “Most people, thankfully, are good people on these Web sites,” said Mr. Cox, who speaks from experience: a few weeks ago he married a woman he met on Match.com. 
 
 Dating sites have no incentive to police their members. The Communications Decency Act absolves Internet service providers of liability because the sites are not considered the publishers of the information on their pages — their members are. The reasoning is that sites would not be able to operate if they were responsible for everything posted by their users. Lawyers have tried to get around this law, but “they usually fail,” said Brian Carver, an assistant professor at the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley. “Every start-up depends on this protection.” 
 
 Parry Aftab, a lawyer and safety expert, says she is increasingly hearing about alarming cases involving online dating, like pedophiles who woo single mothers to get near their children. She expects there will be challenges to that immunity if sites accept money from members and have knowledge of criminal behavior. 
 
 Meanwhile, she advises singles to be cautious. “Don’t give up your heart so fast,” she said. ||||| By Jen Heger and Alexis Tereszcuk 
 
 Radar Assistant Managing Editor / Radar Entertainment Editor 
 
 
 
 The Plaintiff who filed a bombshell lawsuit against mega-star John Travolta is now admitting that he got the date wrong of when he alleges the Grease star made unwanted sexual advances towards him, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting. John Doe # 1 still maintains the attack happened, however. 
 
 Travolta’s lawyer has insisted from the beginning that it was impossible for the actor to have committed the alleged assault on that date because he was in New York City and called the claims “fiction.” 
 
 According to sources close to the case, John Doe #1’s account of the incident remain the same, but in a significant positive development for Travolta his accuser now says the date on which the alleged assault took place was not January 16, 2012, but actually an earlier date. 
 
 John Travolta Sex Accuser ‘John Doe’ Says He Has Proof Of Affair 
 
 “It was a miscalculation,” one source claims about the wrong date being in the lawsuit. A second source believes that the date change will not drastically affect the lawsuit filed against the star. 
 
 “The lawsuit will likely be amended, but this doesn’t change the facts of the lawsuit,” a source connected to the case told RadarOnline.com exclusively. 
 
 “John Doe #1 gave very specific information, and staff from the Beverly Hills Hotel will absolutely be included as witnesses in the case.The source pointed out that Travolta’s lawyer Marty Singer has been a pit bull against the claims, with Singer telling RadarOnline.com that they had flight and hotel details that would prove that Travolta was not in Los Angeles on January 16, 2012.“Let’s not forget John Doe accuser #2. It’s very interesting that Travolta’s team hasn’t gone after him,” the source pointed out. 
 
 John Travolta Sexual Battery Accuser Afraid But Ready To Go To Trial 
 
 With two lawsuits now filed against Travolta, the source said that even though the original date was wrong, they aren’t going to withdraw the suit, which accuses the actor of assault, sexual battery, and sexual harassment. 
 
 “This case will absolutely proceed through depositions and to a trial. The lawsuit can’t and won’t be thrown out because the date was wrong by the first John Doe, which will ultimately be up to a jury to decide. Both accusers are ready to go public, and aren’t afraid of John Travolta, and they will see this through to the end,” the source said. 
 
 Both John Doe #1 and #2 are repped by Los Angeles attorney Okorie Okorocha. 
 
 RELATED STORIES: 
 
 Everyone Knows John Travolta Is Gay, Says Carrie Fisher 
 
 Atlanta Resort Ordered To Preserve All Surveillance Video Of John Travolta’s Stay 
 
 Lawyer: More John Travolta Sex Accusers Coming Forward 
 
 
 
 John Travolta Second Sexual Assault Accuser Documented Alleged Attack In Emails To Bosses 
 
 Second Male Masseur Files $2M Sexual Battery Lawsuit Against John Travolta
– A Los Angeles entertainment executive is suing an online dating site for failing to screen out a man who she says sexually assaulted her. The woman is seeking an injunction barring Match.com from signing members until it begins a process to filter out sex predators like her alleged attacker, who has a history of conviction for sexual battery, said her attorney. Match.com is "a very powerful and successful online dating service, and they have the means to do this,” the lawyer told the Los Angeles Times. Match.com officials said they provide safety tips on the website, and warn members that clients are responsible for screening their dates. In the LA executive's second date with a man she met on the site, he allegedly followed her home and attacked her. "This horrific ordeal completely blindsided me because I had considered myself savvy about online dating safety," the woman said in a statement. "Things quickly turned into a nightmare, beyond my control." She was stunned to discover in a subsequent Web search that the man had been convicted of several counts of sexual battery.