Persopo.com Gets Sued after Cheating Wife is Caught Using the Background Service
Greene County, MO man, David Clark, files for divorce after finding his wife of 11 years has been cheating on him for more than 2 years. David, who was suspicious of his wife’s new interest in fitness and other hobbies, used the background check website Persopo.com. In a strange turn of events, the woman, Kimberly, 37, filed a lawsuit against the Nevada company claiming slander.
According to a Persopo.com spokesperson, “we merely provide the information individuals may be seeking about another person–Mrs. Clark learned Mr. Clark had performed a background check on her by reading his email. Our service is confidential–meaning the person being searched will not be alerted to the search.”
This makes our service safe and secure.” While there are a number of background check websites, Mr. Clark used Persopo.com because the individual being investigated is not informed in any way…and Mr. Clark was holding out hope that his marriage wasn’t a sham. Unfortunately, he was wrong.
Persopo.com pulls information from public records, from social websites, dating websites, and apps, making it a very thorough yet secure way to investigate one’s online activity.
Mr. Clark, 42, said he has been suspicious of the mother of his children’s infidelity for more than a year, but wasn’t able to prove there was anything going on before consulting the background check website. Aside from the emotional trauma, Mr. Clark was concerned about leaving his wife and having to give up part of his family business–a small local-yet-prosperous construction business that was started by his now-deceased father.
Luckily, the fidelity clause in his prenuptial agreement protects his financial assets, ensuring the business remains in his hands to pass down to his own children. Luckily Mr Clark discovered the infidelity soon enough before his wife was able to hide any assets, thanks to Persopo.
Everyday, more American’s are using websites like Persopo.com to learn about the individuals close to them–whether they’re new neighbors or old lovers. In David’s case, he learned his wife was using dating website and was listed as “never married”.
Kimberly is seeking unspecified damages from the Nevada company, stating they “revealed personal information about her, thus ruining her life.”
What are your thoughts? Should Kimberly be awarded damages despite her infidelity?
