Modern Law’s Sharp Divide Between Deception Within and Outside Intimacy

Abstract

This chapter explores the judiciary’s routine refusal to allow deceived intimates to access the remedies that are available for deception in other contexts. The persistently differentiated treatment of intimate deception has heightened consequences because courts often define intimacy broadly to include relationships that were not developed or long-lasting. One woman did not even meet the person who targeted her for a relentless campaign of deceit until close to the time when her deceiver was unmasked, but lost her suit because the court concluded that she was deceived within a “personal relationship.” Judges frequently stress their overarching commitment to shielding intimate deceivers even when ruling for the occasional plaintiff. For example, a court will make clear that it is allowing a particular deceived intimate to pursue her suit only because the litigation advances other public policy goals, such as the public health interest in deterring the spread of sexually transmitted disease.