7 ms·
US appeals court says Tinder Plus pricing is discriminatory
- tengbretson 9y agoThis seems silly to even let this get to a court. How could this possibly be cheaper than changing the prices and settling?
- bringtheaction 9y agoIf 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.
- walshemj 9y agoIf people over 30 think it is, it is Discrimination. And if your caught bang to rights it makes sense to settle instead of being paraded through the courts and have the oppositions highly paid rotwilers trash your senior management teams competence and ethics.
- TomMarius 9y agoI think you're discriminating me. Are you? My point: Just the opinion of people over 30 doesn't matter. Edit: thanks for the downvotes, note that they're not there for disagreement. Seems like we don't need judges and justice at all, we have opinions, right?
- dingo_bat 9y agoHow is this not age discrimination?
- TomMarius 9y agoAlmost every museum, public transit, swimming pool etc has different prices based on age. Is it discrimination?
- strathmeyer 9y agoYes, that's why there's laws concerning it.
- AndrewDucker 9y agoBy definition, it is, yes.
- MBCook 9y agoWhy don’t you think charging different prices to people of different ages is age discrimination?
- ViViDboarder 9y agoIsn’t it already pretty standard? Discounts for children, students, and seniors are all typically age based.
- AndrewDucker 9y ago"Standard" and "Not discrimination" are not the same thing.
- atonse 9y agoChildren's discounts are still charged to the parents paying. Student discounts are based on whether you're a student (something I can become at age 50 if I wanted to). Seniors, well, I don't have an answer :)
- atonse 9y agoThere has historically been a discount for “young poor kids” and we call that a student discount. Charging an amount simply based on the numerical value of age (a pure, permanent demographic attribute) rather than what a person’s economic circumstance (something technically not permanent) does at least form some definition of unfair pricing.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- yorwba 9y agoThey are treating people differently depending on their age. How is that not literally age discrimination? Something can be discrimination even if you don't feel bad about it, and conversely you don't need to feel about something just because it's discrimination.
- SippinLean 9y agoYes this is clearly not age discrimination, just the prejudicial treatment of different categories of people on the grounds of age.
- astura 9y agoThis 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 9y agoWell, at least one judge says "Yes".
- Kliment 9y agoTo 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 9y agoAnd here is the actual opinion PDF: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B270172.PDF http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B270172.PDF
- slowmovintarget 9y agoRight. That isn't an "article" it's a caption.
- rovek 9y agoIn fairness to the author there really isn't much to say. I guess they could have just shared the court ruling straight up though. I was expecting some interesting analysis of how dating platform subscriptions affect different demographics but it's literally just obvious, arbitrary discrimination.
- revicon 9y agoIs the opposite also "age discrimination"? McDonalds sells coffee at a discount to people over age 55.
- pmcollins 9y agoNext up: student discounts and senior discounts.
- aeorgnoieang 9y agoRight? 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 9y agoAARP 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 9y ago"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.
- eisa01 9y agoIn 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.
- 013a 9y ago> 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?
- drewcon 9y agoYou’re confusing cost plus pricing with value based pricing. Answer this question, “How much is it worth to you the customer to be able to...” and that’s probably how they got to $20/month.
- 013a 9y agoI really don't think its that simple. There's a pricing problem with SaaS products like Tinder which suggests that more people will pay if it is cheaper. And with Tinder Plus, they offer literally nothing different that would cost Tinder much more money; it just allows users to use the app more. The problem with $20/mo is that its entering exploitation territory. Like a porn site subscription, it exploits chemical and physical addictions intrinsic to humans to derive revenue. You can say the same thing about, say, any addictive service (like Netflix) and you wouldn't be wrong. But at least Netflix prices at cost, not "value", and Tinder is literally playing with a biological drive and interpersonal relationships, not a simple dopamine addiction.
- nohat 9y agoSerious question: why are senior discounts not illegal then? Does anyone know? Quick Google search was unenlightening.
- DINKDINK 9y agoNot 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 9y agoI 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.
- microtherion 9y agoReading 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]