At least on www.adultcybermart.com you know what you’e getting into.

from www.abcnews.go.com – Millions of people swear by online dating sites like Match.com, but a California entertainment executive claims the website is responsible for her sexual attack.

The woman, publically identified only as Jane Doe, is filing a civil lawsuit asking a court to force Match.com to install a sex offender screening program that scans a members’ background when they sign up for the site. The lawsuit asks for a temporary restraining order that, if granted, would prevent new members from signing up for Match.com until such a program is instituted.

“When somebody uses their credit card to pay, they [would] basically run the card through a sexual offender database,” said Jane Doe’s attorney, Mark Webb.

However, an attorney for Match.com told reporters outside of Webb’s news conference that setting up such a screening system is not possible.

Webb described his client as an Ivy League graduate who works in film and television. She met a man on Match.com and, Webb said, “she had no reason to believe that he was a convicted sexual offender.”

The lawsuit claims Jane Doe and the man went on a date that seemed to go well, but by the second date things turned violent. The lawsuit maintains the man went to Jane Doe’s house after they had dinner and he forced her to perform a sexual act.

Separate criminal rape charges are pending in a Los Angeles court.

According to Webb, the suspect has a violent history involving sex assault cases that should have been caught by Match.com before he was allowed to post a profile on the site.

Match.com is a very successful website, Webb said, and should have the means to install a system that could verify that a user is not a sexual predator.

According to Match.com, it tells its members to check out safety tips on the site, that it is their sole responsibility for screening other members and that what happens on dates is not the responsibility of the company.

In a previous statement, Match.com said: “While incidents like this one between individuals who meet on Match.com are extremely rare, it doesn’t make them any less horrifying.”

Jane Doe is not asking for money in the current lawsuit. She is not suing to make a buck, Webb said, but instead to create change in the world of online dating.

In a statement read to reporters, the woman said, “This horrific ordeal completely blindsided me because I had considered myself savvy about online dating safety.”

Because the civil lawsuit was just filed, arguments have not yet been heard in court.

from www.cbsnews.com – LOS ANGELES – A California woman claims she was sexually assaulted by a man she met on the popular online dating site Match.com, and now she’s suing, saying the site needs to do more to prevent similar attacks.

On Thursday, attorneys for the woman, a Hollywood executive who wants to remain anonymous, filed a civil suit calling for Match.com to to stop adding users until a sexual predator screening process is installed.

The suspect in the case, Alan Wurtzel, is also facing felony charges in LA Superior Court. Police said he is a previously convicted sex offender for other assaults on women he met on the Internet.

CBS affiliate KCAL spoke to the attorney representing Wurtzel, who confirmed he has had problems with the law in the past.

“If somebody uses their credit card to pay, then they basically run their name through a federal sex offender data bank and through a local county registration bank,” said attorney Mark Webb.

Webb said the woman met the alleged assailant last year in West Hollywood. After a second date, the attorney said the man, who has been convicted six separate times for sexual battery, followed her home and attacked her, KNX Radio reports.

Wurtzel’s attorney said the sexual contact was consensual and that he’s pleaded not guilty to two felony charges against him. His trial is set to start April 26.

Robert Platt, the attorney for Match.com, said it would have been impossible to weed him out when he signed up and the company is standing by its practices.

“We don’t have their Social Security numbers. It would create so many problems by trying to get background information on all these people,” said Platt.