Slashdot Mirror
Tinder Must Stop Charging Its Older Users More For 'Plus' Features, Court Rules (arstechnica.com)
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.
"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.
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.
What about senior discounts at restaurants, how is that allowed? Honestly curious.
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.
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.