I think we can safely say that the difference between a hilariously awkard sexual moment on Seinfeld and a lawsuit/criminal court case is the absence of a laugh track.  In what sounds like a classic Seinfeld moment (which would be discussed ad naseum at the coffee shop), a Los Angeles woman is suing match.com for setting her up with a convicted sex offender who allegedly raped her.  Add a laugh track and a clever nickname, and this guy would be part of water-cooler conversation for weeks (or until another dancing wedding video went viral), but without these things, it's all serious litigation.

According to her lawyer, "Because match.com has failed to 'undertake a basic screening process [emphasis provided] that disqualifies from membership anyone who has a documented history of sexual assault, Match and sexual predators benefit, while female members ... are endangered.'"

In response, the President of Match.com issued the following statement: "We use industry-leading technology and have staff members dedicated to monitoring the quality and integrity of the membership pool."

That's true.  In response to the sexual assault, below is match.com's new screening process:

I think the real question is this: aside from the alleged rape, was it a good match?