Tinder Must Stop Charging Its Older Users More For 'Plus' Features, Court Rules (arstechnica.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tinder Must Stop Charging Its Older Users More For 'Plus' Features, Court Rules (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @03:30PM from the swipe-left-and-reverse dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The online dating service Tinder must change one of its key monetization strategies. A Los Angeles appellate court reversed a lower court's decision on Monday and told Tinder to stop charging older users more money per month for its "Tinder Plus" service. The proposed class-action lawsuit, filed by Tinder user Allan Candelore in February 2016, alleged that Tinder engaged in illegal age discrimination by charging its 30-and-older users $19.99 per month for Tinder Plus while offering younger users either $9.99 or $14.99 monthly subscription rates for the same services. Tinder Plus includes app perks such as additional "super-likes" which are more likely to attract a dater's response. In an initial trial, Tinder's defense argued that the pricing was based on market testing that showed a market-driven reason to offer lower prices to "budget constrained" users.

"Nothing in the [original] complaint suggests there is a strong public policy that justifies the alleged discriminatory pricing," Judge Brian Currey wrote in the appeal court's 3-0 ruling. "Accordingly, we swipe left" -- a joke based on the app's popular "swipe to reject" gesture -- and reverse." That reversal hinges largely on California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which was passed in 1959 and protects "equal access to public accommodations and prohibits discrimination by business establishments." The ruling noted that some business-led discrimination is allowed by California state law, but it agreed with Candelore's argument that Tinder's age-targeted pricing is not.

201 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Multiple execs had to agree to this by raymorris · 2018-01-31 15:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

I can imagine one person having a brain fart and doing something stupid. One person doesn't decide the pricing and change it at a whom, though. This had to be multiple executives agreeing this pricing discrimination sounded like a good idea.
Who the heck in running Tinder? I wonder how many of them have graduated high school, because this is a pretty obvious screw up. I notice the various bios of their CEO don't list any other jobs he's ever had. Looks a bit like this may be his first job.
1. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Hadlock · 2018-01-31 16:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Anything is possible as a business, until law enforcement decides you're acting in a criminal manner, or someone sues you for infringing upon their freedoms. Discrimination by age is such an infringement. Most companies are too small for people to try and sue them though.
  
  Uber's whole business model hinges on the idea that non-commercially licenced drivers can operate a taxi service in any city, irregardless of the city/jurisdiction's rules. Then the local taxi group sues Uber after a number of months and then they reach some sort of settlement typically.
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
2. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 16:05 · Score: 0
  
  Well there are other acceptable discriminations like haircuts. You could make the argument that it is harder to find matches for older people and it requires more resources. You might need some data to back that up.
3. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by omnichad · 2018-01-31 16:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Well there are other acceptable discriminations like haircuts
  Which doesn't actually fall along the lines of sex. If you're a woman and get a basic butch haircut, then your overcharging should be considered illegal discrimination.
4. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 16:33 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  What about senior discounts at restaurants, how is that allowed? Honestly curious.
5. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 16:53 · Score: 0
  
  Who the heck in running Tinder?
  Match.com, the same schmucks running OkCupid into the ground.
6. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  Wondering the same thing. Younger folks get a discount instead of older folks in this case. Movies charge different prices for admission based on age, too.
7. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by diamondmagic · 2018-01-31 16:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why do you act as if it's a stupid idea? The biggest correlation with wealth, more than anything else, is how old you are; and that's a fact that doesn't change by which generation you're in, family upbringing, or anything else.
  
  --
  Wonder what the public key field is for?
8. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 17:22 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Uber's whole business model hinges on the idea that non-commercially licenced drivers can operate a taxi service in any city, irregardless of the city/jurisdiction's rules.
  "Irregardless" isn't a word. You meant to say "regardless."
9. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 17:39 · Score: 0
  
  Who the heck in running Tinder? I wonder how many of them have graduated high school, because this is a pretty obvious screw up.
  No, another "matching" service charges differently, and that's nightclubs. Nightclubs allow women free entry on certain days, because chicks attract a lot of males are therefore a revenue generator.
10. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 17:49 · Score: 0
  
  It's not just Tinder, though. I remember OKCupid doing this when I used it years ago. It was easy to get around, because you could literally just update your profile age before subscribing and you'd get the lower price. Still, the concept is absolutely not unique to Tinder and having something legally established on the matter should be considered a good thing.
11. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by Reverend+Green · 2018-01-31 17:50 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Thank you, Dr Pedant, for that learned and enlightening commentary.
12. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by sabri · 2018-01-31 18:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Thank you, Dr Pedant, for that learned and enlightening commentary.
  Speaking English as a second language, I appreciate it if people point me to mistakes like that. It helps me avoid it in the future. Sometimes, a grammar nazi is captain. He just forgot to fly away.
  
  --
  I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
13. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by dryeo · 2018-01-31 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'd think that there other big correlations with wealth. Being born into a wealthy family. Living in the wealthy part of town are two that seem to correlate with wealth. I see a lot of people who look like they should be retired, working shit jobs, McDonalds, Walmart, the Grocery store, all having a good percentage of old people working at close to minimum wage jobs. The stupid kids can get labouring jobs that pay 50-70+% above minimum wage, at least while their bodies last.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
14. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by sg_oneill · 2018-01-31 19:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Its a reasonable question in this context.
  The principle reason for "Senior discounts" is that elderly folks are often poorer (Not always, theres plenty of rich old folk), and have likely been of a "service to the community" in the sense of having lived through conscription wartimes, and so on. So therefore its reasonable to offer a discount to the elderly, in the same way some businesses might offer a discount to the disable or unemployed.
  Tinder in fact argued that in this case users under 30 where more likely to be "budget constrained" than a user over 30 and thus it justifed the policy. The supreme court considered this in detail and noted that the difference is that a 25 and a 35 both have a capacity to earn more money, however a retired senior citizen or a child does not have that capacity and thus the underlying generalizations are different, particularly as the same legislature that enables the anti discrimination laws also limits the ability of the very elderly or the very young to work and thus it carves out its own excemptions there to permit discounts for seniors and children.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
15. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 20:15 · Score: 0
  
  yes it sucks so bad, and they make the restaurant eat the loss.
16. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 20:35 · Score: 0
  
  I'm pretty sure the job has the biggest correlation with wealth.
17. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by diamondmagic · 2018-01-31 20:39 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  If you want to be pedantic about it I'm pretty sure number of digits in your bank account is the biggest correlation with wealth.
  
  --
  Wonder what the public key field is for?
18. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by UrbanMonk · 2018-01-31 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  I would counter argue that younger people on average earn less. [Insert bell curve]
19. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by thegarbz · 2018-01-31 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  This had to be multiple executives
  You have a well over inflated view of how much "executives" have an impact in the day to day operation of the business. Sure one person didn't do this, but I'll bet you a mars bar it was a small relatively lowly sales team.
20. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Opportunist · 2018-01-31 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but older folks being poorer is a relic of the past. Today, the boomer generation is the "old folks" (which are arguably the richest senior citizens ever, and most likely going to remain it) while "generation internship" is what you find among the younger workforce.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
21. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by joelgrimes · 2018-01-31 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  The supreme court considered this in detail and noted that the difference is that a 25 and a 35 both have a capacity to earn more money,
  Not to pick nits, but notice that this was a Los Angeles appellate court ruling on a California law. So the supreme court wasn't involved and if it gets involved, it will just be the CA supreme court so it wouldn't matter to the rest of the country.
  
  --
  Textbooks and Open Educational Resources
22. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by mapkinase · 2018-01-31 23:41 · Score: 2
  
  I have very little knowledge of Tinder and my perception is that it is an application of finding casual sex partners, mostly.
  If that is not the reason to immediately realize how antisocial the whole idea is, I do not know what is.
  Following un-ethical behavior of salesmen is just a logical continuation.
  
  --
  I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
23. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by dfm3 · 2018-01-31 23:42 · Score: 2
  
  Senior discounts are typically a very soft policy, and I've never actually seen one strictly enforced (a reasonable request refused or ID checked, for example). It's the same with military discounts, or college student discounts. I'm in my early 30's yet I've been given a "senior" discount many times for a variety of reasons: because I was nice to a cashier, showed patience while they dealt with a belligerent customer ahead of me, commented on a cashier's haircut, because I was neighbors with the cashier, or because it was easier than waiting for a manager to fix a pricing error. I've also seen cashiers "forget" to offer the discount to a senior who was rude.
  
  Many folks in their 40's or 50's, if they mention the senior discount, will have their request honored, since it's generally considered bad manners to question someone's age. Now, if I were to ask for the same discount, I'd probably get some dirty looks, and I'd feel like I was taking advantage. But if the cashier was in the right mood they'd probably, more often than not, roll their eyes and give me the discount anyway, since that's easier than arguing with an unreasonable customer request.
  
  I never served in the military, but I've noticed that sometimes if a cashier asks if I qualify for that discount, and I reply with a laugh that no, only my parents did so I was a military brat who decided they'd had enough of living on base as a kid, they'll sometimes give me the discount anyway.
  
  If Tinder had phrased this as a "college student discount", it would have been allowed to stand; instead they not only chose to use one of the legally protected classes (age) as a factor, they strictly enforced the pricing scheme based on birthdate.
24. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by swb · 2018-02-01 00:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  AFAIK, it is for finding casual sex partners. I don't know that it's inherently anti-social, if anything, it's at least matching men and women with a shared intent of sexual involvement and potentially reduces some of the chances for sexual harassment which happens when one party wants sex but uses poor cues or inappropriate settings to seek it.
  It doesn't surprise me that they would charge older people more. My expectation is that older men prefer younger women, have less access to younger women in their real lives, and would thus be inclined to overwhelm a service like Tinder. Tinder lives and dies by its ability to attract young women to the platform, and these young women are probably generally interested in partners in their peer group, not 40-something men.
  If Tinder is flooded with older men, it will lose appeal to younger women and probably fail as a platform as women leave it due to too few desired partner matches. So it makes sense that Tinder wants to charge older people more for access. This will reduce the number of men on their platform and compensate them somewhat for whatever marginal loss in female users it causes.
  I'm not sure any of this is unfair to older users. In real life, age discrimination against sexual partners happens. A 45 year old man simply is less desirable to 25 year old women.
25. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 00:43 · Score: 0
  
  In every business I've worked for, the sales team was anything but lowly.
26. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  And what about the relatively world wide practice of offering student discounts?
27. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  Senior discounts are typically a very soft policy, and I've never actually seen one strictly enforced (a reasonable request refused or ID checked, for example). It's the same with military discounts, or college student discounts.
  Dude, if you have a business offering military or college discounts, then don't check ID, then you're doing it wrong and deserve to go out of business.
  You're also insulting the military members by giving away their discount to anyone.
28. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by houghi · 2018-02-01 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  I have been a victem of the war on drugs, so can I get discounts now? How am I a victim? I have to pay for jails.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
29. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by DaveV1.0 · 2018-02-01 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Please provide evidence of your assertion.
  
  Also, people over the age of 50 are trying to save money to retire which opens up higher paying positions for younger people. Unless, of course, you want older people to work until they are 70 or 80 and thus keeping all the high paying senior positions for themselves.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
30. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by squiggleslash · 2018-02-01 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect it's more complex than that, but as someone stuck in a county in Florida that's pretty much run by rich elderly jackasses, I find the whole "Old == poor" thing extremely dubious too.
  And 25 year olds "can earn more money"? Really? I remember being 25, back in the 1990s you had to do two jobs to get anything resembling the lifestyle of a retiree. Single 25 year olds typically have to rent rooms in shared houses, eat Ramen a lot, and generally the luxuries are the occasional movie and Friday night at the bar.
  Even if you compare incomes and find the 25 year old theoretically has more, the 25 year old has to spend a fair proportion of their income on work related expenses, something a retiree doesn't have to do. When 1/3 of your income is spent on transportation, and you have no discounts or anything else to make things easier, and another 1/3 on rent, you don't have a lot left.
  I'm totally happy with laws against age discrimination if the laws have the effect of preventing access to employment or services. But Tinder's actions seem reasonable to me, and it strikes me the likely result of the court ruling is that people will now be prevented from accessing the Tinder platform thanks to their age, whereas before they weren't. Well done Judges, way to show you're in touch.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
31. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by xvan · 2018-02-01 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  You can filter the viable matches by ages, so the price has no impact on "fewer" desirable candidates for women.
  The differences is that paid users have unlimited requests, and the less appealing men need those request to make a match, because of the 80/20 rule https://medium.com/@worstonlin...
32. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Applehu+Akbar · 2018-02-01 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  This is like the old argument over ladies' night pricing at clubs and bars. The lower rates are intended to equalize the gender ratio, not 'discriminate against men'.
33. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  The new cyber-nazis you dumb twat ! LOL.
34. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by spire3661 · 2018-02-01 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  The salient point is 'fixed income',
  
  --
  Good-bye
35. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by mapkinase · 2018-02-01 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  This problem is easily resolved by personal preferences: just set a default setting that the person wants to see others only in his age range.
  
  --
  I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
36. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  I agree with the other comment.
  In my experience sales pukes get glowing memos released, get expense accounts, dont actually do any work. While the guys who do the actual work get no recognition, get no raises, and once every 6 months the company throws a "thank you" for them buy catering in 3 inch sub sandwiches from subway. One a piece please.
37. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by edtice1559 · 2018-02-01 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know. I think this seems ripe for a challenge. If I can charge seniors less, why can't I charge them more. I imagine nobody is bothering to sue because not too many restaurants have as much scale as Tinder. If somebody does sue, I imagine that they will win. However, restaurants will just structure the discount differently (something that Tinder can't do). Many restaurants offer "early bird" specials. Who can eat dinner at 4pm on a Tuesday? Realistically only seniors. (Although if you want to take an afternoon off to save $1 on sandwich, go for it). Also many of them have "senior portions." You get less food for less money. But probably 20% less food for a 10% discount. So it's probably not a good deal unless you are late enough in life that you have low caloric needs.
38. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  My understanding is that age discrimination is, unlike the other prohibited discrimination, unidirectional. That is, you can discriminate AGAINST the young, just not against the old.
39. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Ol+Olsoc · 2018-02-01 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you act as if it's a stupid idea? The biggest correlation with wealth, more than anything else, is how old you are; and that's a fact that doesn't change by which generation you're in, family upbringing, or anything else.
  Well sure. In most cases if you haven't accumulated wealth as you age, you probably screwed up, or were unlucky.
  I think that is another manifestation of the anger that millenials have for boomers. People who were raised with participation trophies seem to have a problem with people who have exercised financial smarts. Should I not have the money I have invested and saved? Should that money be distributed among these young people?
  Then again, I doubt many of them would ever take my path to wealth. I lived in a mobile home for 12 years while I saved money, kept furniture and cars a lot longer, had three retirement accounts, and paid off my house in 15 years. So now I have money, retired 12+ years early, and can do as I please.
  Then again, I've been told I have a skewed version of finances. Well - my apologies kids. You are going to have to create your own wealth.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
40. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by KingMotley · 2018-02-01 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Except irregardless is actually a word, and been in use since 1795. Please check your dictionary.
41. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by WankerWeasel · 2018-02-01 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  There have been dating sites that only charge males, while females get their profiles free. They've gone without issue for a long time so it'd seem doing so based on age might not cause issues wither.
42. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Opportunist · 2018-02-01 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Please provide evidence of your assertion.
  https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
  http://business.financialpost....
  https://www.denverpost.com/201...
  https://money.usnews.com/money...
  https://www.moneywise.co.uk/ne...
  https://mashable.com/2014/11/2... (a bit off, but works for boomers just as well)
  http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/i...
  https://www.buxtonco.com/blog/...
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_...
  https://www.amazon.de/Boomer-N... (don't worry, not a make-me-rich link)
  https://www.bisnow.com/nationa...
  And so on, but I think that should suffice. Pick the publication you are the most inclined to not cry "fake news" about.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
43. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Opportunist · 2018-02-01 04:01 · Score: 2
  
  Well, judges are mostly old men, so ...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
44. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by devman · 2018-02-01 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  I honestly don't see why this is a problem given how many business have senior/children discounts and all. How are these things materially different. I guess this will be appealed.
45. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by devman · 2018-02-01 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  That also isn't true, because you have things like child discounts or 'kids eat free', under 13 matinee ticket pricing, etc.
46. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by swb · 2018-02-01 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that relying on honestly reported ages won't result in much success.
47. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  There have been dating sites that only charge males, while females get their profiles free. They've gone without issue for a long time so it'd seem doing so based on age might not cause issues wither.
  Lots of places have "Ladies Night" or discounts for senior citizens. Insurance companies base rates on age and sex. Some on race too. How many grants/scholarships for women only (despite women already having higher University attendance rates), or people of specific ethnic backgrounds.
  It seems it is usually only discrimination if you discriminate against women or older people. If you discriminate against men, older people, or majority race, that's OK.
48. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by Oswald+McWeany · 2018-02-01 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  I would counter argue that younger people on average earn less. [Insert bell curve]
  20 somethings as a group would certainly earn less than 30 somethings as a group. 30 somethings often have additional costs though. Children, alimony, etc. 20 somethings probably have more disposable income than 30 somethings because they have less responsibilities and less past baggage to pay for.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
49. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by networkBoy · 2018-02-01 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  irregardless
  irärdls/Submit
  adjective & adverb informal
  regardless.
  so it is an informal [mispronunciation] of regardless.
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
50. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  Ladies night pricing is illegal in California too.
51. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Cajun+Hell · 2018-02-01 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  I'd think that there other big correlations with wealth. Being born into a wealthy family.
  Ok, so your change request as a Business Analyst at Tinder, is that you're going to modify the form, so that where it currently asks for users' DoB, you're going to replace that with "How much money does your family have?" because we're changing the strategy that we're going to use to optimize the market-segmentation use case.
  
  --
  "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
52. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Wulf2k · 2018-02-01 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  What if you're operating without a lack of regard for something?
53. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Wulf2k · 2018-02-01 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  "The lower rates are intended to equalize the gender ratio, not 'discriminate against men'."
  Do you honestly not see that as the same thing?
  They want to discriminate against men to equalize the gender ratio.
  I'm not even saying it's a bad thing, but that's exactly what they're doing.
54. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by WallyL · 2018-02-01 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck figuring out which grammar corrections are incorrect or sarcastic (and incorrect).
55. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Presence+Eternal · 2018-02-01 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  It's some combination of:
  They dominate the venue choices of mixed-age groups. "So Mom, where do you want to eat?"
  If loyal they are the last people to abandon a struggling restaurant.
  They get angry about inflation.
  They're most likely to post complaints.
  Senior discounts are often simply a matter of offering a senior serving size. They eat like birds due to sense-loss, medication, and depression, so many places offer smaller and cheaper portions for them.
  Some owners genuinely venerate the elderly.
56. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2018-02-01 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  That information is commercially available. Why wouldn't they use it?
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
57. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  Because in our society, discrimination is socially acceptable in many instances, with an ever changing roster of winners and losers.
  Old folks get discounts? That's positive for them, and considered just because many are on a fixed income, nearing the end of their lives, and have already provided society benefits.
  Propose that old folks should have their driver's licenses taken away after a certain age? That's age discrimination. Next.
  Say something nice about women? That's nice, and you're nice. What a nice chat.
  Say something bad about women? That's sex discrimination/sexism. Next.
  Basically, discrimination can be practiced, provided the effect/affect is en vogue with the society.
58. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  back in the basement gramps!
59. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Ol+Olsoc · 2018-02-01 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  back in the basement gramps!
  No, more like the suite.. Getting ready for a cross country vacation, and unless you are unlucky, you'll be here some day. Enjoy!
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
60. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by david_thornley · 2018-02-01 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Fixed at what point? Besides, the elderly who are well off can try making more income off their investments. Or getting some sort of part-time job (obviously, this doesn't work for everyone, but I'm planning to retire while still healthy).
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
61. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by mjtaylor24601 · 2018-02-01 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't they need to rely on honestly reported ages or validate age in some way in order to enforce their price discrimination?
  
  --
  I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
62. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by david_thornley · 2018-02-01 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  In employment law, people between 40 and 65 are a protected class, while younger people aren't. How good an idea this is (I think the protected class should extend to Social Security full retirement age, personally, and that's 66 for me) is left as an exercise for the flame wars.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
63. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2018-02-01 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Or handicap-like expectant mother parking spots, just to be nice?
  Here, however, they pretend to offer additional services (e.g. "My boner is extra hard for your picture!") and not just a different price.
  I guess a young person could sign up for senior plus service, but the reverse is not true, and that's the discriminatiin under CA law.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
64. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by david_thornley · 2018-02-01 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Fortunately, I had the financial acumen to be the right age to buy a house before the real estate market went kablooie, and to go to college when it was still pretty inexpensive. Millennials are wastrels who feel the have to go to school while it's expensive, instead of forty years ago, and who don't plan to buy houses around 2000.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
65. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by david_thornley · 2018-02-01 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, if I see an attractive woman significantly less than half my age, I tend to fantasize hooking her up with my son. I may be atypical in this.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
66. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  I don't agree.
  My understanding was that Senior's Discounts are a way to honour the elderly. It's a sign of respect for those who (without looking too closely to check for accuracy) are wise, accomplished, and dignified.
  It might also benefit people on fixed incomes, but that's a secondary matter and not to be discussed in polite company.
67. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-02 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  Declaring occaisional 'discounts' for certain customers/times is legal. Declaring that the prices depend exclusively on your age range is not.
  In the first case, you are including certain groups by making the price more appealing. In the second, you are excluding certain groups by making the fees prohibitive.
68. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-02 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  "Disregarding" can substitute "irregardless of" if you wish to not sound like a hick trying to sound sophistamicated
69. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-02 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  Damn son. You sure shut him up
70. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-02 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  Cool. How about "you're all a bunch of cannon fodder brainwashed to rob Poor countries and die horrible deaths for rich people, there is zero honor in that, and if you kill someone it's still murder".
71. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-02 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  You're confusing generalization with discrimination. Discrimination laws are to protect marginalized groups. The only people who don't get that are White males who are scared shitless of an actual pluralistic society (that was a generalization)
72. Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this by sg_oneill · 2018-02-04 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  A hell of a lot of the boomers lost their retirement savings in the 2007 crash. My father pretty much had to unretire himself and go back to work for ten years just to make ends meet.
  But your missing the point. Its not about averages, its about the fact that senior citizens and children cant necessarily go to work to make ends meet, but unless disabled (who get discounts too) 20yos and 30yos CAN.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
73. Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this by Opportunist · 2018-02-04 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  And guess what, it only took 5 minutes of using Google...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Tinder by 110010001000 · 2018-01-31 15:41 · Score: 0

Isn't Tinder free? What are people paying for?
1. Re:Tinder by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 16:17 · Score: 0
  
  "Tinder Plus includes app perks such as additional 'super-likes' which are more likely to attract a dater's response."
2. Re:Tinder by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 16:19 · Score: 0
  
  Extra "privileges". See the comparison:
  https://lifehacker.com/what-ar...
  The privileges are useful for older men to scope out women in different areas and expand their reach. And they charge more for older people because older men are lonely and have jobs to pay for privileges.
3. Re: Tinder by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 17:29 · Score: 0
  
  I wouldn't call a 30+ man an "older man". He's barely even allowed to buy alcohol yet.
4. Re:Tinder by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 19:53 · Score: 0
  
  Sex, duh.
Tinder suxs anyway... by b0s0z0ku · 2018-01-31 15:41 · Score: 3, Funny

Tinder sucks. No way to know more about a person than pictures and brief one-liner. Also easy enough to create throwaway accounts. OKCupid and similar free dating services keep the bar higher than a gallery of random mugshots.
1. Re:Tinder suxs anyway... by 110010001000 · 2018-01-31 15:49 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I thought Tinder was just for meeting people for sex. I only use Grindr, so I have no idea.
2. Re: Tinder suxs anyway... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 17:55 · Score: 0
  
  OKC is run by anti-sex "progressive" Puritans.
  It's fairly difficult to create throw away Tinder accounts. Because each account is tied to a Facepalm account, with their police state account rules.
3. Re: Tinder suxs anyway... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 19:23 · Score: 0
  
  OKCupid and Tinder are owned by the same group (not sure since when).
  OKCupid has been going through a metamorphosis process to make it similar to Tinder.
4. Re:Tinder suxs anyway... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 20:34 · Score: 0
  
  is that like the five point palm technique? because I think i'm a master...
5. Re:Tinder suxs anyway... by fahrbot-bot · 2018-01-31 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  I thought Tinder was just for meeting people for sex. I only use Grindr, so I have no idea.
  They're both for helping people make fire. Gather some Tinder, apply friction with Grindr and -- poof -- fire. The real action is at the next step using Blazer, though it's a bit overrun with stoners, for some reason. Swipers beware.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
6. Re:Tinder suxs anyway... by bickerdyke · 2018-01-31 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  Tinder sucks. No way to know more about a person than pictures and brief one-liner.
  That's probably part of the success. If you think someone is interesting beyond a picture and one-line-description, you have to TALK. Like normal people, you know? But as I understand tinder, that happens only with people who find your picture at least mildly ok, too. So it's basically old-school flirting, but lowering that entry bar of that embarrassing "first step"
  
  Also easy enough to create throwaway accounts. OKCupid and similar free dating services keep the bar higher than a gallery of random mugshots.
  But will a random mugshot be successful?
  
  --
  bickerdyke
7. Re:Tinder suxs anyway... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  Gross...
And yet social media continues to discriminate! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 15:42 · Score: 0

"equal access to public accommodations and prohibits discrimination by business establishments." hmmm,... I'll remember to bring that up next time I'm banned from facebook and twitter for my ProTrump opinions.
1. Re:And yet social media continues to discriminate! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 15:59 · Score: 0
  
  Opinions on a site run by a business... are not protected by discrimination law. They can randomly delete all your posts, no worries. Lobby Matt Drudge to add a user forum and you're all set. Wow, now that would be some good reading.
  
  I'm not a lawyer but I've won a few cases pro se. Enough to feel comfortable not suing for that because I understand what discrimination means as far as the law is concerned.
2. Re:And yet social media continues to discriminate! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 18:20 · Score: 0
  
  Shut up and bake the damn cake!
3. Re:And yet social media continues to discriminate! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  screw those bans
  someone should set you on fire
Key words by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 15:44 · Score: 0

I was thinking, "Why do I go to the Zoo and pay $20 for myself and $10 for my kid then?"

Until I saw in the article stub, "Nothing in the [original] complaint suggests there is a strong public policy that justifies the alleged discriminatory pricing,"

Does this mean because it's not commonplace in the market for apps to charge based on age they struck it down? So the Zoo can do it because other brick and mortars do?

Is charging more even discrimination in the first place? Charging someone is still allowing them to have a service. My barber also charges more for me, even though my child has longer hair when they get their hair cut. More time is spent on the kid and they make less money.
1. Re:Key words by Pentium100 · 2018-01-31 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  "Why do I go to the Zoo and pay $20 for myself and $10 for my kid then?"
  There are probably different reasons for it.
  Kids are always accompanied by adults, so the zoo still sells a full priced ticket (or two) to a family. Also, it is an incentive to go with your kid rather than leave him at home. The age cutoff for cheaper tickets is usually quite low (7 or so), so the cheaper/free ticket is also offered as a convenience for the parents (a 2 year old kid probably won't get a lot out of the visit, but you take him there when visiting the zoo with your older kid so as not to leave him alone).
  All of that does not apply to online stores/services.
  
  Is charging more even discrimination in the first place? Charging someone is still allowing them to have a service.
  What if the price was based on race/religion? $10 for whites, $15 for blacks, $20 for Hispanics and if you wear a hijab, then it's $50 for you.
2. Re:Key words by mark-t · 2018-01-31 16:42 · Score: 2
  
  Kids are always accompanied by adults, so the zoo still sells a full priced ticket (or two) to a family. Also, it is an incentive to go with your kid rather than leave him at home. The age cutoff for cheaper tickets is usually quite low (7 or so), so the cheaper/free ticket is also offered as a convenience for the parents (a 2 year old kid probably won't get a lot out of the visit, but you take him there when visiting the zoo with your older kid so as not to leave him alone).
  I think it's much more complex than that. Child bus tickets and passes cost less than adult ones, for instance, even if the child is not accompanied by an adult (which would often be the case for say a 12 or 13 year-old taking a public transit bus to or from school).
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
3. Re: Key words by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 19:19 · Score: 0
  
  'round these parts prior traveling on child or student tickets must give up their seat if adult ticket holders are standing.
4. Re:Key words by bickerdyke · 2018-01-31 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  "public policy" could be meant literally: The Zoo can do it because it posts all prices at the gates
  
  --
  bickerdyke
5. Re: Key words by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 21:22 · Score: 0
  
  The taj mahal is 40 rupees for indians and 1000 rupees for foreigners. But it is not unknown for rich indians to buy a foreigner ticket just for the much shorter queue.
6. Re: Key words by mark-t · 2018-02-01 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  The only similar thing we have where I live is that able-bodied individuals, whether children or adults, seated in the seats nearest the door of public transit vehicles are encouraged to give up their seats for the elderly or disabled. The only circumstance in which this is mandatory is when the person who is boarding is in a wheelchair, and they require the use of a convertible seat designed to accommodate wheelchairs that is occupied by able-bodied individuals. The bus must further not be so crowded that they cannot even get the wheelchair to the seat without people otherwise needing to leave the train or bus.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
7. Re:Key words by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  And don't forget about "senior citizen discounts" at a variety of places. Seems to me that this ruling just opened the floodgates to allow people to demand a stop to those. I wonder if the people complaining about the increased tinder prices had considered the possibility of discounts that they benefit from being taken away for the same reason.
Senior Discounts. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 15:44 · Score: 0

While were at it lets stop the practice of senior discounts. If anything as the article says, the younger generation, especially these days is more budget constrained than their older counterparts who are making more money. If the younger generation can afford full price, so can the seniors. If you're retired and can't afford full price, well that's your problem for not properly saving throughout your working years.
1. Re:Senior Discounts. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 16:02 · Score: 0
  
  Meh. You just have the seniors buy your shit for you and split the savings. Win-win. Then follow them home and steal all their stuff.
2. Re: Senior Discounts. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 16:55 · Score: 0
  
  My local paper has been full of letters complaining about the senior discount ending.
3. Re:Senior Discounts. by MikeB0Lton · 2018-01-31 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  Senior discounts encourage seniors to become frequent visitors. Less on the individual transaction, but way more revenue from repeat business.
4. Re:Senior Discounts. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 20:21 · Score: 0
  
  And that would work on any age demographic
5. Re:Senior Discounts. by jarkus4 · 2018-01-31 20:43 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Not necessarily. Seniors are mostly retired and have lots of free time during the day when others are at work. By getting them to come more frequently you are filling up time with few regular customers and so you are using your employees and space more efficiently.
6. Re:Senior Discounts. by bickerdyke · 2018-01-31 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  And discounts to under 35yrs aren't encouraging them to become frequent visitors?
  
  --
  bickerdyke
7. Re:Senior Discounts. by Oswald+McWeany · 2018-02-01 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  While were at it lets stop the practice of senior discounts.
  Goodness no! I'm over half way there now. That would suck if all my life I've been paying more because I'm not a senior citizen, and then have that discount taken away when I'm just a decade or two away.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
8. Re:Senior Discounts. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  Not necessarily. Seniors are mostly retired and have lots of free time during the day when others are at work. By getting them to come more frequently you are filling up time with few regular customers and so you are using your employees and space more efficiently.
  If that's the goal why not just offer discounts to anyone, regardless of age, based on if they come during down times?
  That is more to the point, more rational, and more effective.
  Or is it just because you're upset you're gonna be losing your discounts, old man?
So we're back to.. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 15:47 · Score: 0

.. proxies for age. Student status, AARP membership, etc., are strong proxies for age, and is what they'll use now. Nothing will change.
1. Re:So we're back to.. by omnichad · 2018-01-31 16:17 · Score: 1
  
  AARP membership
  AARP wouldn't be a proxy. It would be the business that discriminates by age.
2. Re:So we're back to.. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 10:58 · Score: 0
  
  I was medically retired from the military at age 27 and the AARP has been harassing me since then to join. So no, they don't discriminate by age.
3. Re:So we're back to.. by omnichad · 2018-02-02 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently you don't have to be retired either. Virtually every web site that talks about them lists age requirements, but they do not. In fact, they offer a discount for those under 50.
  Since their own web site doesn't list requirements, I assume they're relying on non-authoritative sources to perpetuate the lies and remain "exclusive." Even their own web site says "Anyone 50 and over can get all the great member benefits" but doesn't specify anything for those under 50.
So, that means... by ScentCone · 2018-01-31 16:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

So, that means that as someone who doesn't get "senior discounts" because I'm below a certain age, I'm being discriminated against? This cuts both ways.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
1. Re:So, that means... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  So, that means that as someone who doesn't get "senior discounts" because I'm below a certain age, I'm being discriminated against? This cuts both ways.
  Yes, that is discrimination. Just like how they'll turn old folks into Soylent Green is discrimination too.
  But you have to ask, has that discrimination been found to be unlawful in a court of law like say Ladies Night or is it untested, or even specifically allowed?
2. Re:So, that means... by omnichad · 2018-01-31 16:16 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  Yes. And the local oil change place that has a "Ladies Day" discount. Or Ladies Night in a bar. It's going to have to be all or nothing and it seems that Tinder was the one to open that can of worms in court. In Illinois, gender discrimination has been found legal (see other poster before me).
3. Re:So, that means... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  Age discrimination is legal if you're under 40. My wife was passed over for a big promotion and flat out told she was qualified but was too young for the job.
4. Re:So, that means... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 17:22 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. And the local oil change place that has a "Ladies Day" discount. Or Ladies Night in a bar. It's going to have to be all or nothing and it seems that Tinder was the one to open that can of worms in court. In Illinois, gender discrimination has been found legal (see other poster before me).
  You're mistaken. It was decided that the activity/offer was not discrimination. They did not decide discrimination was legal.
5. Re: So, that means... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 17:28 · Score: 0
  
  Sue the buggers. That's insane!
6. Re:So, that means... by omnichad · 2018-01-31 17:51 · Score: 0
  
  It was decided that the activity/offer was not discrimination
  Perhaps you should read the dictionary definition of discrimination.
7. Re: So, that means... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 18:55 · Score: 0
  
  Yup, but age discrimination is legal if you're under 40. That wasn't just talk, it's the law!
8. Re:So, that means... by Uberbah · 2018-01-31 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  Gonna be a tough sell if kids are also discounted (a la movie tickets).
9. Re:So, that means... by bickerdyke · 2018-01-31 20:55 · Score: 1
  
  But you have to ask, has that discrimination been found to be unlawful in a court of law like say Ladies Night or is it untested, or even specifically allowed?
  I would have guessed this was untested as this is a win-win. Women get cheaper drinks, men get a place with more women. I'm wondering who was stupid enough to sue.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
10. Re:So, that means... by skovnymfe · 2018-01-31 23:19 · Score: 0
  
  Some over-entitled millenial no doubt.
11. Re:So, that means... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  In 1985? A Millenial?
  With what, his DeLorean?
12. Re:So, that means... by edtice1559 · 2018-02-01 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry. They've already found a way around this. Now bars have drink specials on the most feminine drink. i.e. anything pink with an umbrella in it is only $2. has the same effect. If a man really just wants to get plastered, he can buy those too. End result is mostly the same.
13. Re:So, that means... by SuiteSisterMary · 2018-02-01 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you read the dictionary definition of discrimination, when the only definition that matters is the legal definition?
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
14. Re:So, that means... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2018-02-01 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Senior discounts are okay because they are "retired persons" discounts that happen to be based on a rough heuristic. And it works cause it's hard for me to imagine a 66-year-old who works complaining, or a jury being sympathetic to a retired 40-year-old suing to save $1.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
Desperation tax? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 16:15 · Score: 0

The older you are the harder (no pun intended) it is to find a willing partner... so why not upcharge?
I'm gonna go reach out and extend an idea.... When an imminent disaster is boring down on a community.. its illegal to take advantage of that (i.e. upcharging for plywood, gasoline, bottled water etc. in the path of a hurricane).
So by proxy.. if you're no longer a chick magnet and your prospects (imminent disaster) are being limited by an act of God (Hurricane... Getting Older) a business decides to become predatory and charge more for those that don't have the mojo that their younger folk do.. This is an issue. It is leveraging human hope.. based on the mathematics that your hope of finding a suitable partner decreases as your age increases... and these R-Tards are profiting by the likely degradation of a positive outcome based on your age... means you should be up-charged for your chance to be happy.
1. Re: Desperation tax? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 19:26 · Score: 0
  
  No one's safely or wellbeing is at stake with Tinder plus. If someone can't afford jacked up prices, is not going to harm them in any way.
  You could argue using Tinder puts someone's wellbeing at risk. Maybe the court should turn it around and say no discounts for young people, it increases their risk of chlamydia.
2. Re: Desperation tax? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  No one is harmed by not getting a gay wedding g cake, either.
3. Re: Desperation tax? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  The baker also is not harmed in making one.
4. Re:Desperation tax? by Oswald+McWeany · 2018-02-01 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  The older you are the harder (no pun intended) it is to find a willing partner... so why not upcharge?
  I'm gonna go reach out and extend an idea.... When an imminent disaster is boring down on a community.. its illegal to take advantage of that (i.e. upcharging for plywood, gasoline, bottled water etc. in the path of a hurricane).
  So by proxy.. if you're no longer a chick magnet and your prospects (imminent disaster) are being limited by an act of God (Hurricane... Getting Older) a business decides to become predatory and charge more for those that don't have the mojo that their younger folk do.. This is an issue. It is leveraging human hope.. based on the mathematics that your hope of finding a suitable partner decreases as your age increases... and these R-Tards are profiting by the likely degradation of a positive outcome based on your age... means you should be up-charged for your chance to be happy.
  Along your line of thinking then...
  What if they charged more if you're ugly. Subjective I know, but would it be acceptable if they had a small panel of judges who flipped through and marked the ugly people and charged them more?
  There are laws against discriminating against age, religion, sex, race, national origin, etc. There are no laws against discriminating against ugly people. Yet, somehow that sounds even more distasteful.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
5. Re:Desperation tax? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  Obviously that would be fair and should be allowed.
  There really are two options.
  1. Charge everyone the same price
  2. All women are free, except the most god awful repulsive women are charged a small fee. The most attractive men, like top 2% are free, all other men pay a fee slightly higher than the ugly woman's fee, and ugly men must pay extreme fees.
  If you are ugly, almost certainly chances are it is your fault.
6. Re: Desperation tax? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-02 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  Except for the forced speech aspect. You dumbass chimp.
Can we sue car insurance companies? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 16:21 · Score: 0

Can we sue car insurance companies for age discrimination ?
1. Re:Can we sue car insurance companies? by omnichad · 2018-01-31 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  Insurance companies are explicitly excepted in the laws.
2. Re: Can we sue car insurance companies? by Reverend+Green · 2018-01-31 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  No doubt the insurance companies spend handsomely on bribes, errrr, I mean lobbying.
3. Re:Can we sue car insurance companies? by Dog-Cow · 2018-01-31 18:27 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Are they? Insurance companies charge by the statistics. If younger people are statistically more likely to cost more, that's not the Insurer's fault.
4. Re:Can we sue car insurance companies? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 20:27 · Score: 0
  
  The stats make sense though, in auto insurance statistically those under 25 are riskier drivers. In heath insurance and life insurance those that are older are statistically more expensive/less profitable.
5. Re:Can we sue car insurance companies? by lister+king+of+smeg · 2018-01-31 21:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The stats make sense though, in auto insurance statistically those under 25 are riskier drivers. In heath insurance and life insurance those that are older are statistically more expensive/less profitable.
  and over 60 to but my active 90 year grandmother pays less than me even though she is a greater risk.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
6. Re:Can we sue car insurance companies? by Opportunist · 2018-01-31 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't you get the memo? Statistics or reality mean jack shit, what matters is that if you find out that (insert minority group here) is statistically more likely to do (insert bad thing here), you're WRONG! Axiomatically.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
7. Re:Can we sue car insurance companies? by edtice1559 · 2018-02-01 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Over 60 are not necessarily a higher risk for auto insurers. They have a higher accident rate. But they tend to be driving slower and cause less damage. A dozen parking lot fender benders have a much lower payout than one ramming into a school bus.
8. Re: Can we sue car insurance companies? by liefer · 2018-02-01 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. And black people (males especially) cost more than white people. I challenge you to use a pricing structure based on that statistic, I'll be ready with the popcorn I guess the real question is: how good at statistics are companies allowed to be before it's no longer acceptable?
9. Re:Can we sue car insurance companies? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-02 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  You misunderstand the principle.
  It's not a matter of whether your grandmother has a greater risk of dying, it's a question of how much is she likely to COST.
  At 90, the actuarial tables show that she'll VERY likely pop off from something mundane, and it won't cost a penny.
  You, however, are at your PEAK expensive period. All sports of organ failures, congenital conditions, accidents, inappropriate sports, inattentive driving - if I was an insurance agent, I'd take the granny as a client thanks. You are a walking liability.
  Me, I'm early 50s, and my insurance premiums are rising like a rocket, because my contemporaries are stressing out big time thanks to the corporations fucking us all over at work, and those drugs to make people feel calm, they're expensive to buy. Not to make, but that's not important.
  With private health care, we all get fucked over.
  With public health care, we all get looked after.
Hey wait a minute by DontBeAMoran · 2018-01-31 16:21 · Score: 1

You understood it all wrong, guys.
They're not charging more for the older users, they're charging less for the younger users! Big difference!

--
#DeleteFacebook
I'm in my mid-fifties and live in Seattle... by greenwow · 2018-01-31 16:54 · Score: 0

and I don't think any of my male friends have ever been on a date. I know I haven't. Why shouldn't Tinder be able to charge us more for an audience that more needs their service?
1. Re:I'm in my mid-fifties and live in Seattle... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 17:00 · Score: 0
  
  That probably has more to do with working Seattle Hundreds than anything else. I moved to Redmond, WA (about 10 miles east from the edge of Seattle) in 1986, and every company I've worked for has required 12+ hour days during the week plus the vast majority of weekends. You'll never meet anyone working those hours, plus the only two girls I've met here in the 31+ years I've lived here were driven off by me talking about work. That was pretty much all I had to talk about since I basically only work.
2. Re: I'm in my mid-fifties and live in Seattle... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 17:39 · Score: 0
  
  Iâ(TM)ve wasted hundreds of hours on Tinder but never even met anyone but I still support them charging my age to weed out the less serious people.
3. Re:I'm in my mid-fifties and live in Seattle... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 18:01 · Score: 0
  
  Seattleite here. I think I've been on a handful of dates since I've been here and they were all horrible. Likewise though I work 60+ hours a week and just don't have the time nor interest in dating, especially when (at least in my experience) the dating options tend to be quite horrible.
4. Re: I'm in my mid-fifties and live in Seattle... by bickerdyke · 2018-01-31 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  "serious people"? I thought tinder was meant to be more casual.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
5. Re:I'm in my mid-fifties and live in Seattle... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2018-02-01 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  They could charge you more if you had been on fewer dates/were a virgin. Discriminating prices based on age (within the working age population) is illegal, as is discriminating prices based on race or religion.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
It's simple reirect to sugerbabies dot com by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 16:54 · Score: 0

People use tinder despite multiple serial killers and just general stupid?
a rare victory by Presto+Vivace · 2018-01-31 16:56 · Score: 1

against age discrimination.
It's not stupid - lots of businesses do it by Solandri · 2018-01-31 17:06 · Score: 2

Except instead of explicitly charging older people a higher rate based on an age cutoff, they simply offer a discount for students and children. The correlation is very close to an age-based cutoff, except you don't get in trouble for age discrimination. Kinda like how insurance companies can't charge more based on race, but they can charge more if you live in a certain zip code which just so happens to correlate strongly with race.

So what they were trying to do wasn't stupid. They just implemented it wrong.
1. Re:It's not stupid - lots of businesses do it by AmiMoJo · 2018-02-01 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  With students and especially children, society has decided that it's okay to favour them because students should concentrate more on study than earning and because bringing up children is highly beneficial for society but very expensive for the parent.
  In some places the same logic applies to older people. They might have a fixed income (pension), and in fact some governments give them extra benefits like the UK's winter fuel allowance (because so many were freezing to death).
  So the real question here is if it's okay for society to favour certain groups, either to compensate for some disadvantage or because it benefits society to do so, but at the same time it's not okay for private individuals or businesses to do the same. Of course most places are fine with individuals giving their own money to the charities of their choice, for example.
  You also hit upon another complication, which is that the discount is effectively the same as a surcharge for everyone who doesn't qualify. This is actually being tested in the UK the moment. The Labour Party had an event where they subsidised the tickets of some people from minority backgrounds, and a Tory politician complained that it was a "white surcharge".
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
unintended consequences by supernova87a · 2018-01-31 17:07 · Score: 1

So, what does this mean for the whole life insurance industry then? Their whole business model is charging people more as they get older.
1. Re:unintended consequences by Dog-Cow · 2018-01-31 18:28 · Score: 0
  
  They are charging for a secondary effect of getting older, and not because you've reached some arbitrary age. People with certain medical conditions or diseases are also charged more.
2. Re:unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  a secondary effect of getting older is having a harder time getting matches on Tinder.
Really stupid.. by jcr · 2018-01-31 17:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

As a Libertarian, I believe that businesses should be free to make any pricing decisions they want, even if they piss off some of their customers. As a businessman, I'm amazed that Tinder's management can be so fucking stupid.
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
1. Re:Really stupid.. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 17:37 · Score: 0
  
  It's not like they got fined or are criminally liable so it's not that big a deal
2. Re:Really stupid.. by iamacat · 2018-01-31 18:32 · Score: 0
  
  As a libertarian, you should appreciate that while your self-ownership of your own body does not decline with age, exchange value of your bodily fluids takes a drastic dip. Having too many old people on is not good for a platform that relies on purely physical attraction. Paying higher prices allows old people access to the platform for high value used cases, like being sugar daddies, while subsidizing young attractive users for them to swipe right. The logical extension is paid swipes, but current statist policies only allow that in certain counties of Nevada.
3. Re:Really stupid.. by Cochonou · 2018-01-31 19:48 · Score: 1
  
  Tinder is free. Every one can access it. We are talking here about extra services.
4. Re:Really stupid.. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 20:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Your argument is non-valid. Tinder users can specify the age brackets of the people they are shown. If you only want to see [20,28], you'll never be shown the older people.
Cheaper for Younger by dohzer · 2018-01-31 17:32 · Score: 4, Funny

I should also have to pay less if I'm only targeting the young women!
1. Re:Cheaper for Younger by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 01:07 · Score: 0
  
  I should also have to pay less if I'm only targeting the young women!
  By this logic, pedophiles should get a free ride.
Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 18:00 · Score: 0

... that showed a market-driven reason to offer lower prices to "budget constrained" users.
Translation: Older women are more desperate to fuck a Brad Pitt look-alike.
1. Re:Translation by bickerdyke · 2018-01-31 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  Well... you learn to ride on older horses...
  That was the motto of a guy back at school who would frequent an ~40 bar. (This was pre-internet) And quite successfully.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
You weren't by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 18:05 · Score: 0

"equal access to public accommodations and prohibits discrimination by business establishments." hmmm,... I'll remember to bring that up next time I'm banned from facebook and twitter for my ProTrump opinions.
That does not make sense, so unless you quote the exact text of the thing that got you banned, we will assume you were banned not because of pro-trump opinions, but because of the manner in which you expressed them.
Banned from Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 19:53 · Score: 0

"equal access to public accommodations and prohibits discrimination by business establishments." hmmm,... I'll remember to bring that up next time I'm banned from facebook and twitter for my ProTrump opinions.
That does not make sense, so unless you quote the exact text of the thing that got you banned, we will assume you were banned not because of pro-trump opinions, but because of the manner in which you expressed them.
What the hell do you have to do to get banned from Facebook? I mean, there are KKK and Neo-Nazi leaders on Facebook that haven't been banned yet so you'd clearly have to upstage them in obnoxiousness to get banned.
1. Re:Banned from Facebook? by lister+king+of+smeg · 2018-01-31 20:55 · Score: 1
  
  there are KKK and Neo-Nazi leaders on Facebook that haven't been banned yet.
  Yes but banning the is the president wouldn't work. If he weren't allowed to spew shit online he would just call press conferences when he gets board and shat it out on TV. So they don't bother to kick him off.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
2. Re:Banned from Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 22:02 · Score: 0
  
  Yes but banning the is the president wouldn't work. If he weren't allowed to spew shit online he would just call press conferences when he gets board and shat it out on TV. So they don't bother to kick him off.
  What are you going to do when that memo gets released and it shows that democrats engaged in illegal behavior.
3. Re:Banned from Facebook? by edittard · 2018-01-31 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yes but banning the is the president wouldn't work.
  
  Wouldn't work? It doesn't even parse.
  
  --
  At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
4. Re:Banned from Facebook? by Falconnan · 2018-02-01 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  At most, the memo could either claim or suggest it, barring actual evidence being provided by it. And as the memo in question was put together by someone who clearly has at least one horse in the race, it would need to be corroborated. Keep in mind, if a Democrat puts out a memo pointing the other way, it is subject to the same skepticism. Now an actual report, with appropriate legal citation, would carry more weight. At most, a memo points toward a path for investigation, so we shall see.
  Frankly, I fully expect to find members of both parties to be involved in illicit activity. However, if an incumbent office holder is involved, or has been involved, with a hostile foreign power, that is an urgent concern to national security. It exceeds the importance of ordinary criminal activity, which can be prosecuted in the normal fashion. That said, if the Clintons had done even 1% of what they've been accused of, and successfully avoided prosecution (with massive interests looking to bring them down, no less), they are the greatest masterminds of the last 200 years. Frankly, I find that hard to believe, at best.
Thats Silly :| by wolfheart111 · 2018-01-31 20:13 · Score: 1

You should be charged by how good you look. Ugly people pay a premium. lol

--
[($)]
1. Re:Thats Silly :| by xvan · 2018-02-01 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Good looking people don't need the extra services, and with the free subscription they have more matches than they can handle.
Banks do this stuff in Europe by gshegosh · 2018-01-31 20:46 · Score: 1

I used to have a bank account that was free until I turned 30. Then it started to cost an arm and leg. I wonder if I might sue them just for the "joy" of it.
1. Re:Banks do this stuff in Europe by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  You can attempt to sue anyone for anything. That has always been the case.
  It is the winning part that is problematic.
All words are made up. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 21:04 · Score: 0

Anything can be a word if you want it to be. All you have to do is decide for it to be, and it is.
1. Re:All words are made up. by ixidor · 2018-01-31 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, ask shakespere, he made up a ton. and michael jackson's whoo.
2. Re:All words are made up. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 23:42 · Score: 0
  
  I know you're not being serious, but it's a falsehood that is often repeated by people who seem to really believe it, so it's worth noting that there is no evidence that Shakespeare invented any words. It's possible, of course, that he did, but we'd have no way of knowing which words. It's easy to see why: just think about it for a bit.
  Interestingly, people who repeat this falsehood often use the verb "coin". Perhaps they're all copying from the same book of lies.
3. Re:All words are made up. by murdocj · 2018-01-31 23:52 · Score: 2
  
  Irridiculous!
4. Re:All words are made up. by Hal_Porter · 2018-01-31 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  You're correct. The notion that Shakespeare invented words is baseless and a barefaced lie. We must castigate people who violate fair play by spreading this sanctimonious nonsense, even though they are multitudinous /s
  http://grammar.yourdictionary....
  http://shakespeare-w.com/engli...
  And yeah, I realise 'invented' and 'first known user of' aren't quite the same thing.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
5. Re:All words are made up. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  Shakespeare made up words? That's unpossible!
6. Re:All words are made up. by Major_Disorder · 2018-02-01 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  That is a very cromulent point you made there.
  
  --
  First law of people: People are generally stupid.
Age discrimination is rampant in law by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 21:31 · Score: 0

The law has two sets of rules. Those for itself and those for others. There is no logic in it.
On the one hand we have the government says you can't discriminate based on age and on the other hand the government has laws that says one must be 21 years of age to drink, 18-21 to drive, and so on. Then at the same time the government hypocritically encourages those 16-18 to sign up to a government created murder squad that goes after millions of innocent people because of a handful of elite with ulterior profit motives.
Let me make it clear- I'm against age discrimination. I don't think corporations should discriminate like this and I don't think governments should either. I don't think we should have restrictions based on age for smoking, drugs, driving, sex, or anything else for that matter. I don't think there should even be any law where there is no presentable victim. The existence of risk is a poor excuse to penalize everyone of a particular class. It would be one thing if you made everybody take a test to demonstrate driving ability. But that isn't how it works. The reality is they restrict those able to take such tests to those over a certain age. They also discriminate against older drivers. Obviously the testing hasn't worked to begin with for the purposes the governments state. Most accidents have nothing to do with ability and everything to do with people doing stupid shit and that isn't exclusive to any age group. By increasing the driving age we have only seen the age at which we have inexperienced drivers on the road increase. The argument thus keeps on going for why we should increase the age yet again. It used to be by 18 we had experienced drivers because people started driving at 14 or so but now we have inexperienced 21 year old drivers in some states because the state has made it extremely difficult for young people to get drivers licenses and thus we've seen an increase in older drivers getting into accidents over the longer time period. And when you add "science" into the mix (which has similarities to the excuses the NAZIs used for murdering undesirables) you can increase this to 28. Do you really think people shouldn't be able to get a drivers license until they hit 28? Because we know that the brain continues to develop until you hit 28 or thereabout.
Give me a break. Get rid of government. I'd rather see corporations discriminating like this where there isn't a government instituted or enabled monopoly because at least because I can avoid said corporations. I don't use Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and other many other companies products because they act in ways I don't agree with. I can't refuse government without the coercion and violence of the state however.
Yes- I did move to New Hampshire to work toward minimizing state interference and the Free State Project's participants have done a great deal to improve things here. We don't have to ask permission to conceal a firearm any more or ask the state permission to setup crypto vending machine businesses. There are also numerous other laws that fixed bad surprise court rulings like one that enabled the state to enter your home without warrant for "inspections". Or how about the NAZI checkpoints that the states have been doing for years? We have a bill to end this in the house this year. These checkpoints only exist because of fear of drunk drivers and fraud on the part of police and government. They haven't reduced drunk driving because the checkpoints rarely catch drunk drivers and the polices only statistics show that patrolling catches more drunk drivers than DUI checkpoints. On the other hand the real reason they like them is the exception is supposed to be used for catching drunks but it dosn't stop them in practice as using it as a fishing expedition for catching people committing other "crimes" (revenue generator, I see you have a frame around that license plate? yea- you probably do- about half of cars- and every car off a dealerships lot just about has one- $50 citation because it ever so slightly covers the words "New Jersey" on the license plate, etc).
you can drink under 21 in WI by Joe_Dragon · 2018-02-01 01:04 · Score: 1

Yes. Persons under age 21 may possess and consume alcohol beverages if they are with their parents, guardians or spouses of legal drinking age; but this is at the discretion of the licensee. The licensed premise may choose to prohibit consumption and possession of alcohol beverages by underage persons.
The bastards by nospam007 · 2018-02-01 02:34 · Score: 1

I have to sue my local cinema and zoo, they also charge younger and older customers less (under 12 and over 65) also my railway is even worse, they let customers under 12 years use it for free.
Re: And yet social media continues to discriminate by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 02:37 · Score: 0

Thatâ(TM)s why a baker in Colorado can refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Oh, wait...
Old people, on the median, are not poor by XXongo · 2018-02-01 02:53 · Score: 1

The principle reason for "Senior discounts" is that elderly folks are often poorer (Not always, theres plenty of rich old folk), and ...
Sorry, but older folks being poorer is a relic of the past. Today, the boomer generation is the "old folks" (which are arguably the richest senior citizens ever, and most likely going to remain it) while "generation internship" is what you find among the younger workforce.
Please provide evidence of your assertion.
That's an answerable question. Here's data: http://www.rcaemergingwealth.c...
Looks like income rises until about age 35, then flattens out somewhere between 35 and 45, but does not go down significantly for old people.
That graph is median income, by the way, so this effect is not just a small number of "rich" old people skewing the average up.
oxymoronic legalisms... by XXongo · 2018-02-01 02:58 · Score: 1

I do think that it's amusingly oxymoronic that in an attempt to reduce drunk driving, states have a policy that you must show a driver's license to buy a drink.
1. Re:oxymoronic legalisms... by Mal-2 · 2018-02-01 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  This is why California issues IDs through the Department of Motor Vehicles which are equivalent to a driver's license in all ways other than licensing you to drive.
  
  --
  How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Re:I'm Really stupid.. by jcr · 2018-02-01 04:58 · Score: 1

I see you're finally putting some effort in, but you have a long way to go. Better luck next time, sparky.
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I'm about to flip by Cajun+Hell · 2018-02-01 05:49 · Score: 1

All my life I have shared your opinion, but I'll be 50 pretty soon. Hell yes I'm joining AARP, just for the discounts alone (a single weekend of hotel discount pays for a whole year of membership). I'm going to be allowed to use the exercise machines at my municipal senior centers too, so maybe next election I'll vote for those bonds instead of the usual voting against them.
I'm totally going to start exploiting every stupid edge that previous old people (my former enemies) left in place for me. I might even start to soften up on social security; maybe we do need to keep that around instead of dismantling it. One thing's for sure: you aren't paying enough into it! (I'm just thinking about your future; heavens-to-betsie, why do you think I intend to raid your fund myself? No, we'll just borrow from it during anomalous periods of budget crisis, but I promise we'll always put the money back after the emergencies are over.)
And as for lawns, oh yes: keep the fuck off them, please.

--
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Rational Reasons why Tinder charges 30+ more by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 06:28 · Score: 0

For those of you curious why in the world Tinder did this in the first place, there's a great blog post on Price Intelligently. They go through the rational and reasons for Tinder to segment their market like this:
http://www.priceintelligently.com/blog/why-tinders-charging-older-users-more-and-why-it-makes-perfect-sense
If you are in software and have to figure out your software's price, this blog is helpful. Certainly helped me when we were trying to adjust our pricing.
Charge men more by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 07:29 · Score: 0

They should charge men more. That type of discrimination -- outright sexism, really -- not only rarely gets challenged, much of the population supports it.
let them do what they want by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 09:18 · Score: 0

They will be as ir-relevant as those other sites in a few years. Hell, let them even charge extra if person has a kid - who gives a shit.
Pedantically, the absolute value of wealth. 401k t by raymorris · 2018-02-01 15:11 · Score: 1

> If you want to be pedantic about it I'm pretty sure number of digits in your bank account is the biggest correlation with wealth.
If you want to be pedantic about it I'm pretty sure number of digits in your bank account is the biggest correlation with THE ABSOLUTE VALUE of wealth (it's often negative).
Plenty of people have five digits in their bank account and six digits of debt.
If you were only going to look at one account, I'd guess the best correlation may be the 401k / IRA balance. The amount of home equity is a big factor, but that wouldn't be represented in an account balance.
Re:Pedantically, the absolute value of wealth. 401 by diamondmagic · 2018-02-01 16:24 · Score: 1

Here I was more worried I was forgetting things like material and liquid assets. (Jeff Bezos, most likely, doesn't actually have 12 digits in his bank account.)
Also, *woosh*

--
Wonder what the public key field is for?