Contributed by: kellyseal on Monday, February 26 2018 @ 12:06 pm
Last modified on
Tinder’s premium service has been controversial since its debut in 2015. The company started off on the wrong foot by setting higher prices for users who were older than 30, and a sliding scale to younger users. Now, a California appeals court has found the company’s pricing model to be discriminatory to older users.
Judges with the California 2nd District Court of Appeals reversed the decision made by a previous judge, and has ordered Tinder to stop charging older customers more for its premium service, according to reports.
Tinder was charging users 30 and older $19.99 to use the premium service as opposed to those in their twenties, who were only charged $14.99 or $9.99. For the extra funds, users got to “superlike” their favorite matches, swipe as much as they wanted, change their decision on a match even after they swiped left, and avoid those pesky ads that pop up in the free version.
Tinder originally argued that its pricing was based on customer behavior, saying that “customers age 30 and younger have less capacity to pay for premium services” and that they “need a lower price to pull the trigger,” according to a report by NPR. Tinder maintained that most users under 30 were on tighter budgets than their older counterparts, and that a lower price point affected their decision to purchase.
Tinder told the Court that it is “self-evident that people under 30 face financial challenges.”
The 2nd District court judges felt differently, and said in a statement that Tinder "employs an arbitrary, class-based, generalization about older users' incomes as a basis for charging them more than younger users." In other words, they weren’t buying Tinder’s argument, especially in light of the fact that the company’s then-CEO Sean Rad was under 30.
Tinder customer Allan Candelore brought the lawsuit against Tinder in early 2016, noting the pricing difference violated a California Civil Rights Act law from 1959 that “secures equal access to public accommodations and prohibits discrimination by business establishments.” The lawsuit also noted “unfair competition,” which includes any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.”
"Some older consumers will be ‘more budget constrained’ and less willing to pay than some in the younger group," the judges said in their statement.
"Because nothing in the complaint suggests there is a strong public policy that justifies the alleged discriminatory pricing, the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer," the judges said. “Accordingly, we swipe left, and reverse."