“We swipe left, and reverse,” said the California Second District Court of Appeal in a unanimous Jan. 29 ruling against Tinder’s age-based pricing for its premium subscription service.
The service, Tinder Plus, charged customers above the age of 30 $19.99 per month beginning in 2015, while users under 30 paid $9.99 or $14.99 per month.
Rosette Pambakian, a spokesperson for Tinder, justified the pricing model on market research showing people under 30 were less financially secure.
“Younger users are just as excited about Tinder Plus, but are more budget constrained, and need a lower price to pull the trigger,” Pambakian said in an email obtained by the court.
Allan Candelore, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, claimed the dating service was violating California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Unfair Competition Law. The appellate court concurred with Candelore, ruling Tinder made generalizations regarding the income of 18 to 30-year-olds compared to their older counterparts and thus were discriminating individual users based on age — a personal characteristic similar to those defined under the Unruh Act.
The appellate court used language from a California Supreme Court case, Marina Point vs. Wolfson, to explain that generalizations — even true generalizations — cannot be used to discriminate against individuals: “If height is required for a job, a tall woman may not be refused employment merely because, on the average, women are too short.”
"No matter what Tinder's market research may have shown about the younger users' relative income and willingness to pay for the service, as a group, as compared to the older cohort, some individuals will not fit the mold,” wrote Judge Brian Currey, author of the court ruling. “Some older consumers will be 'more budget constrained' and less willing to pay than some in the younger group.”
Currey noted Tinder’s pricing model was equivalent to a grocery store charging customers different prices based on their age. Addressing the legality of senior citizen and children discounts, the court said such discounts are the result of social policy within the state — seniors and children both lack employment opportunity.
“On the other hand, there is no strong public policy and no State of California or federal statutes recognizing any public policy to especially help millennials and others between the ages of 18 and 29,” Alfred Rava, the plaintiff’s lawyer, said in an interview.
