Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

California court swipes left on Tinder ruling

Reprints
California court swipes left on Tinder ruling

A California appeals court has reversed a lower court and ruled against Tinder Inc. in an age discrimination case that alleged older users were being charged more for its premium service.

Los Angeles resident Allan Candelore sued the makers of the dating app — which allows users to swipe right to express approval or swipe left to express disapproval of dating prospects — over the pricing of its premium service, Tinder Plus.

In Candelore v. Tinder Inc., filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Mr. Candelore alleged that Tinder charges users who are age 30 and older $19.99 per month for Tinder Plus, while it charges users under the age of 30 only $9.99 or $14.99 per month for the Tinder Plus features. The court ruled in Tinder’s favor.

However, according to the ruling by the California Court of Appeals in Los Angeles, the market practice violates California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Unfair Competition Law.

Tinder argued that market testing showed that younger users are more budget-constrained than older users and need a lower price point. But he Unruh Act provides broad protections against arbitrary age-based price discrimination, and the appellate court ruled in Mr. Candelore’s favor.

“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,” according to the court documents.

Read Next