
US appeals court says Tinder Plus pricing is discriminatory - breitling
https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/31/us-appeals-court-says-tinder-plus-pricing-is-discriminatory/
======
Kliment
To save everyone a click, here is the entire text behind the link:

They say all's fair in love and war, but those that have used Tinder will
probably disagree. And that includes Allan Candelore, a man suing the dating
app over the pricing of its premium service, Tinder Plus. Candelore and his
lawyers argue that charging $9.99 a month to users under 30, and $19.99 a
month to those over 30, is age discrimination, and violates two California
laws: the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Unfair Competition Law.

Tinder co-founder Sean Rad said, "Our intent is to provide a discount for our
younger users", and while a lower court agreed with him, a California appeals
court reversed the decision in a lengthy statement that suggested "some older
consumers will be 'more budget constrained' and less willing to pay". Then, in
a "how do you do, fellow kids?" move, the court concluded its opinion on the
previous ruling with "Accordingly, we swipe left, and reverse". It's not yet
clear how this judgement will affect pricing in the future -- we've reached
out to Tinder for comment.

~~~
QuotedForTruth
And here is the actual opinion PDF:

[http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B270172.PDF](http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B270172.PDF)

------
eisa01
In Norway they also use price discrimination, but not necessarily on age.

I have to pay double compared to my friend, even though we're the same age.

This is likely illegal, Tinder support never respond to me when I ask why I
pay a different price. I'm considering to launch a complaint with the consumer
ombudsman when I get the time.

------
pmcollins
Next up: student discounts and senior discounts.

~~~
aeorgnoieang
Right? This seems like an impossibly sweeping judgement. If it were allowed to
stand, would the AARP itself be forced to allow anyone to join? [I just
checked and they no longer have an age requirement.]

~~~
astura
AARP hasn't enforced any age requirement they have/had for many years. I know
quite a few young members, they join for the discounts. Discount/frugal blogs
also mention this fact pretty often.

I in my 30s, don't have an AARP membership, but have the AARP credit card
(it's a good card!). It says it's "designed for AARP members" but doesn't say
AARP membership is required. I just left the AARP membership number blank on
the application and Chase was cool with that.

So, in practice at least, AARP is open to all, it's just not well
known/advertised.

~~~
5555624
"AARP" also now stands for "AARP" and not "American Association of Retired
Persons." They "changed" the name more than 15 years ago. The focus is not
necessarily on retirees anymore. The current TV commercials seem to be in an
office setting. The "age" to join is now 50.

If you don't own a car, the AARP discounts seem to be the same as AAA.

------
013a
> Our intent was to provide a discount for younger users.

Let me get this completely straight. Netflix can deliver unlimited views of
thousands of tv shows and movies for $10/mo. Spotify lets you stream 30
million songs. Amazon can get physical packages to your doorstep in two days.
Google can spin up a server in a data center for you.

But Tinder requires $20/mo. It must be cripplingly expensive to store all of
those photos and biographical text fields. I can't even imagine the size of
the data they store, it must be _terabytes_. And the engineering behind
_swiping_?

~~~
IronKettle
? The COGS for most software approaches 0 pretty rapidly, so it's just as
arbitrary that Spotify charges $10/month for a premium subscription.

The price of software (and any good, theoretically) is rarely priced based on
expenses.

~~~
pjc50
Both Spotify and Netflix have to pay a large chunk of that to the copyright
holders.

------
nohat
Serious question: why are senior discounts not illegal then? Does anyone know?
Quick Google search was unenlightening.

~~~
DINKDINK
Not the answer to your question but just another data source:

Courts have barred companies from negatively discriminating against older job
applicants but not against younger job applicants for not being experienced
enough.

The best theory/argument I could come up with is: "The elderly or infirmed
have reached the end of their productive capacity and even if they wanted to
earn more money to afford something, they couldn't. Young people OTOH could."

Conspiratorial theory: Judges are older and power structures always chose laws
that favor the power structure.

~~~
astura
I hate to be picky but this is not quite accurate.

Absolutely nothing to do with judges.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which was passed by
_Congress_ and signed by _the President_ , is what prevents age discrimination
against people over 40. According to the EEOC it does not apply to people
under 40, so baring any local or state laws, employers are free to
discriminate based on age for younger employees/applicants, not just for being
inexperienced. In my experience, its not even an uncommon practice either,
I've met a few employers who have had floor ages for their employees due to
(perceived) immaturity in younger employees.

As far as the reasoning, it's stated in the act itself:

(a) The Congress hereby finds and declares that-

(1) in the face of rising productivity and affluence, older workers find
themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially
to regain employment when displaced from jobs;

(2) the setting of arbitrary age limits regardless of potential for job
performance has become a common practice, and certain otherwise desirable
practices may work to the disadvantage of older persons;

(3) the incidence of unemployment, especially long-term unemployment with
resultant deterioration of skill, morale, and employer acceptability is,
relative to the younger ages, high among older workers; their numbers are
great and growing; and their employment problems grave;

(4) the existence in industries affecting commerce, of arbitrary
discrimination in employment because of age, burdens commerce and the free
flow of goods in commerce.

(b) It is therefore the purpose of this chapter to promote employment of older
persons based on their ability rather than age; to prohibit arbitrary age
discrimination in employment; to help employers and workers find ways of
meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment.

~~~
DINKDINK
Thanks for including that. I had forget about that the act. My point still
follows, power structures will always write laws that favor them over others.

------
microtherion
Reading the headline, I thought for a second that they were charging higher
user fees to fat people...

[Disclosure: I'm not a Tinder user, but fat]

------
tengbretson
This seems silly to even let this get to a court. How could this possibly be
cheaper than changing the prices and settling?

~~~
bringtheaction
If I was Tinder and I made discount price for young people I would not want to
"settle" with someone who sued me because they felt "discriminated against".

Age discrimination is real, but this is not an instance of it IMO.

~~~
astura
This is absolutely is, literally, age discrimination. I think you're confusing
"not discrimination" with "not illegal," "not uncommon," "not something I
personally care about," or "not something I personally think should be
illegal."

The real question/issue is is it _illegal_ discrimination? Something can be
discrimination but not _illegal_ discrimination.

~~~
AndrewDucker
Well, at least one judge says "Yes".

