Key Takeaways

A California senator wants dating platforms to mark certain dating app users with a (metaphoric) scarlet “D” for “dangerous.” As the bill passes through committee, the million-dollar question remains: Does government regulation of online dating platforms make users safer, or does it compromise their privacy? 

The bill’s author, Democratic Sen. Caroline Menjivar, answers this question with a resounding “Safety first.” 

California SB-1390 posits that dating platforms are in part liable for the user’s safety, and should raise safety standards by conducting criminal background checks and identifying which users have a violent criminal history. 

When it comes to safety, dating apps are at a crossroads. The time for empty promises is long past; if daters don’t feel safe from the first click, they’re not going to engage with the app at all. California SB-1390 signals the public’s rising safety standards — and their simultaneous protectiveness over their own data. 

Why Is California SB-1390 Called the “Scarlet Letter” Bill? 

The bill proposes that online dating platforms must conduct (or have a third party conduct) a criminal background check, including of the National Sex Offender Registry, on all California-based users. 

Platforms would have to flag the profiles of those who meet this criteria so other users are aware of their criminal background. 

So if you live in California and have been convicted of a violent felony, domestic violence, and/or a hate crime, expect to see a flag next to your profile, hence the “scarlet letter” nickname. 

The “Neutral Platform” Era is Officially Over

It has never been easier for scammers, bad actors, and violent individuals to target people looking for love online. There was a time when platforms could absolve themselves of liability for the user’s safety, but those days are over. 

“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,” Menjivar wrote. 

While most people can’t easily access criminal background checks, California SB-1390 proposes that dating platforms should, that way they can inform users if a potential match has a history of violence. 

Privacy Concerns are a Major Stumbling Block

Why would anyone vote “no” to tighter safety precautions on dating apps? Because criminal background checks would require platforms to dig into people’s personal information. 

Not everyone is keen on the idea of apps like Tinder having access to their criminal history. San Francisco senator Scott Wiener argued that criminal background checks on dating apps could have “significant unintended consequences in terms of people’s privacy,” perhaps exposing them to manipulation and even discrimination. 

We’d also have to consider the rights of the felon. There’s a world where a former convicted felon joins a dating app looking for a fresh start, only to receive a metaphorical scarlet letter on their profile — a glaring red flag for potential matches, and an unwelcome disclosure for a former felon who may want to turn over a new leaf. 

Criminal background checks on dating apps could have “significant unintended consequences in terms of people’s privacy.” — Sen. Scott Wiener

Menjivar admitted that there is “no foolproof way” to confirm that someone is who they claim to be on a dating app, especially since most people are understandably wary of providing their Social Security Numbr or government ID to a dating platform. 

But Menjivar and the bill’s supporters, including the Crime Victims Alliance, argue that the overall safety benefits for non-felons outweigh potential privacy concerns for those with felony convictions.

“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,” she wrote. “SB 1390 is designed to close that gap.” 

The Bill Draws on Real-Life Survivors of Dating Violence

Menjivar’s strongest argument for criminal background checks on dating apps are the real-life stories of dating violence survivors. Her original proposal referenced the high-profile criminal case of cardiologist Stephen Matthews, who in 2025 was convicted of 35 criminal counts including drugging and sexually assaulting multiple women. 

“Many place some of the blame on the fact that most platforms do not conduct comprehensive background checks on users,” Menjivar wrote in her original proposal.

This stands out as a particularly chilling example of the power apps hold when they do — and when they don’t — protect users from abusers. 

“Many place some of the blame on the fact that most platforms do not conduct comprehensive background checks on users.” — Sen. Caroline Menjivar

“Just because we agree to be on an app doesn’t mean we’re agreeing for bad things to happen to us and they get away with it,” one survivor said. 

This survivor, along with other women who sued Matthews, claimed that they repeatedly reported his behavior to Hinge between 2020 and 2023, but that his profile still popped up on the app during that time, leaving countless women vulnerable to violence. 

These are the women the “scarlet letter” bill intends to better protect in the future, with the bill holding platforms accountable for their own role in the protection of users. 

What Does All This Mean For Dating Apps? 

If the bill continues its current trajectory, it will be enacted in California, changing the way platforms and users interact with each other. In theory, this change is a positive one, with users ultimately feeling safer and more secure when interacting with dating platforms and the people they match with. 

But there are some important logistics to consider. Although platforms generally want to shorten the time between the user’s download and their first click, implementing criminal background checks for every California-based user would undoubtedly lengthen the onboarding process.

This increases the possibility of user drop-off before they even engage with the app. 

The companies Technet and Internet.works questioned the feasibility of criminal background checks from a platform’s perspective.

The companies Technet and Internet.works questioned the feasibility of criminal background checks from a platform’s perspective. It would be entirely too costly, Technet argued. And what happens when a California-based user commits a felony outside of California? 

“This would create a legally intensive process that even trained professionals may struggle to execute with precision,” Technet noted. 

But the bill’s supporters argue that any cost or infrastructure changes would ultimately raise the app’s safety standards, and therefore the user’s trust in the app. And as any dating industry pro would tell you, the user’s trust is priceless.