A California appeals court has swiped left on Tinder for charging more to customers who are over 30 years old.
On Monday, the California Court of Appeal ruled that Tinder Plus, which costs $9.99 for hopeful singles under 30 and $19.99 for those over, is discriminatory.
The initial lawsuit was filed by Allan Candelore on behalf of himself and a putative class of California consumers who were over 30 years old, according to court documents.
His legal counsel, Alfred Rava, told the San Francisco Chronicle the ruling should be considered “a significant equal-rights victory for California consumers.”
Per court documents, Tinder argued that the policy was logical and justified as research showed younger users were on more strict budgets.
Tinder users aged 30 and above, however, were more willing to cough up the cash in the hopes of swiping right on the loves of their life, App-backers contended.
A California appeals court has ordered Tinder to ditch discriminatory pricing policies for Tinder Plus users over 30 years old.
(Leon Neal/Getty Images)
Older users, Tinder’s research found, were at a more financially stable place in their lives.
Unfortunately, Los Angeles County Judge William Highberger wasn’t buying it.
Citing the Unrah Act, which outlaws discrimination based on sex; race; color; religion; ancestry; age; disability and more, he ruled that Tinder’s payment model for their premium dating service was, without question, in violation.
“As alleged, Tinder’s pricing model discriminates against users age 30 and over, and the complaint’s allegations do not compel the finding that this discrimination is justified by a strong public policy in favor of such differential treatment,” Highberger said in his ruling.
According to court documents, officials said the policy was too presumptive in regards to the financial wellbeing of Tinder users.
“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,” documents stated.
“We conclude that discriminatory pricing model, as alleged, violates the Unruh Act and the UCL to the extent it employs an arbitrary, class-based, generalized about older users’ incomes as a basis for charging them more than younger users.”
“Accordingly, we swipe left, and reverse,” the document states.
The appeals court expressed a fear that Tinder’s logic could be used to justify discrimination in more mainstream places.
The three-judge panel noted that age-based pricing has been legally allowed at times, however it’s generally to the benefit of senior citizens and children, both of whom have “limited earning capacities.”
Tinder did not immediately respond to the Daily News’ request for comment.