When a company you’re considering hiring has been sued before, it’s always cause for concern. That said, companies get sued all the time, so you can’t automatically assume that it means it’s all bad news. Is the latter the case with the popular matchmaking company It’s Just Lunch?
Well, a 10 year court battle in the Southern District of New York known as Rodriguez vs. It’s Just Lunch International is certainly worth looking at before you consider signing up.
Today we’re going to breakdown the details of the case, share what you need to know, and reveal the outcome.
Before we get started, here’s a bit of a spoiler. It’s Just Lunch may not be at the top of your list when you finish reading the details of this case. Because of that, we did want to share a link to our list of the best matchmaking services. Feel free to take our word for it and check it out now or come back later after you’ve read the article.
And for the curious who want to know the details of the It’s Just Lunch lawsuit, buckle up and let’s get into it.
Rodriguez, et al. v. It’s Just Lunch
Before we get started, we should clear something up.
If you notice in the screenshot of the case files above, it says Packman vs. It’s Just Lunch instead of Rodriguez vs. It’s Just Lunch. The reason for this (from our understanding, we are not lawyers) is that the case started out originally as E. Packman vs. It’s Just Lunch as an individual case in 2007. In later years the case was brought as a class-action lawsuit by Christian Rodgriguez and several co-plaintiffs.
If you see on Justia Law, it shows both of these listed as the same case.
Not a big deal, but just something we want to draw attention to. With that said, let’s get into the meat and potatoes of this lawsuit.
Here’s what the lawsuit against It’s Just Lunch claimed.
The lawsuit claimed that It’s Just Lunch was a “a massive scheme to defraud tens of thousands of single professionals throughout the country—especially busy, affluent professional women.”
First, It’s Just Lunch advertised that it employed expert matchmakers with a lot of experience in the field. However, the lawsuit mentions that they “hire staff members who have no experience, training or background whatsoever in the field of matchmaking.” In other words, you’re paying for an expert matchmaker, and you’re just getting a random person with no experience under the guise that they’re an expert.
Next, the court documents show that even though you shared your preferences for matches with the company, they would ignore them and send you poor-quality matches solely to fill the quotas they promised in their contracts.
Third, the company would claim they have perfect matches for you, even if those matches don’t exist. Additionally, they would inflate the number of matches in your area telling you there are thousands of members, whether that is true or not.
And what’s wild is that all of this was included in the company’s training manual, known as First Date University. They referred to a lot of these as “control points” where they would take control of the interview. For example, here’s a screenshot from It’s Just Lunch’s training where they told matchmakers to physically flip over their clipboard and tell the client they had 3-4 matches for them, whether it was true or not.
What is even more wild is that the aggressive sales training would teach matchmakers that they did something wrong if the client didn’t purchase.
“So! If you do get a pending you have done something wrong in the interview. Remember they came in wanting to join – they even knew to bring their checkbook and our client’s are way too busy to come in and meet with you just to “check it out”. So how do you re-establish their confidence in you and get them to join? Follow these steps!”
It’s Just Lunch Training Manual – First Date University
The verdict – It’s Just Lunch was ordered to pay $4.75 million in damages and offer $60 million in free date vouchers.
In May of 2014, the case was certified as a national fraud class and a class for unjust enrichment claims, signaling the first big win for the plaintiffs.
On June 27, 2019 a settlement was reached by both parties and the fairness of the settlement was upheld by the courts on December 10, 2019.
The settlement was a huge win for the plaintiffs providing both injunctive and monetary relief. Here’s what was included:
- Created a $4.75 million monetary relief fund to pay out cash awards to the plaintiffs
- All members of the class action suit would receive $200 or a voucher for (1) free IJL date
- Named member’s of the suit would receive $12,000 each
- The plaintiffs moved for legal fees of $1.5 million to be repaid to attorneys
- IJL must alter its customer contracts to “include specific characteristics, including a new commitment to honor client preferences related to age, religion, and parental status when providing matches to members.”
- IJL must also “alter its website and contracts to include an explicit quality-of-services pledge.”
The total compensation is estimated by the courts to be $77 million.
Follow on case – Rosanne Vrugtman et al v. Its Just Lunch International LLC
In 2020, Roseanne Vrugtman and Tammy Gillingwater filed a claim against It’s Just Lunch that the company was not living up to the terms of its settlement.
According to legal documents found on Justia Dockets & Filings, the case was dismissed on August 25, 2023.
The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was voluntarily dismissed mutually by all parties in February of 2024.
What this all means
In the end, It’s Just Lunch settled for an eye-popping $77 million in cash, costs, and vouchers, as well as needing to make significant changes to their company’s policies. For us, this is deeply concerning, especially for anyone who might be interested in signing up with the company. If you are still looking for an option, consider checking out the list of our top picks for matchmaking services linked at the top of this article.