Violated California Law.
Tinder made a bit of a misstep when it came to the pricing of its premium service. The fact that Tinder Plus actually costs users more ($19.99 up from $9.99) if they’re over the age of 30 drew some ire. And they had to defend their decision in court, since that sort of model puts them at odds with California law.
Plaintiff Alan Candalore sued Tinder for age discrimination, alleging that the pricing model for the premium service violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and Unfair Competition Law. A lower court awarded Tinder the win, but the case went to appeals court. And the appeals court ruled in favor of Candalore, their ruling below:
The trial court sustained Tinder’s demurrer without leave to amend, ruling in part that Tinder’s age-based pricing practice did not constitute arbitrary or invidious discrimination because it was reasonably based on market testing showing “younger users” are “more budget constrained” than older users, “and need a lower price to pull the trigger.”
But, as discussed below, the Unruh Act provides broad protection against arbitrary age-based price discrimination. 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. Some older consumers will be “more budget constrained” and less willing to pay than some in the younger group. We conclude the discriminatory pricing model, as alleged, violates the Unruh Act and the UCL to the extent it employs an arbitrary, class-based, generalization about older users’ incomes as a basis for charging them more than younger users. 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. Accordingly, we swipe left, and reverse.
Source: PC Mag
About Author
