Tinder Must Stop Charging Its Older Users More For 'Plus' Features, Court Rules (arstechnica.com) 201
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The online dating service Tinder must change one of its key monetization strategies. A Los Angeles appellate court reversed a lower court's decision on Monday and told Tinder to stop charging older users more money per month for its "Tinder Plus" service. The proposed class-action lawsuit, filed by Tinder user Allan Candelore in February 2016, alleged that Tinder engaged in illegal age discrimination by charging its 30-and-older users $19.99 per month for Tinder Plus while offering younger users either $9.99 or $14.99 monthly subscription rates for the same services. Tinder Plus includes app perks such as additional "super-likes" which are more likely to attract a dater's response. In an initial trial, Tinder's defense argued that the pricing was based on market testing that showed a market-driven reason to offer lower prices to "budget constrained" users.
"Nothing in the [original] complaint suggests there is a strong public policy that justifies the alleged discriminatory pricing," Judge Brian Currey wrote in the appeal court's 3-0 ruling. "Accordingly, we swipe left" -- a joke based on the app's popular "swipe to reject" gesture -- and reverse." That reversal hinges largely on California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which was passed in 1959 and protects "equal access to public accommodations and prohibits discrimination by business establishments." The ruling noted that some business-led discrimination is allowed by California state law, but it agreed with Candelore's argument that Tinder's age-targeted pricing is not.
"Nothing in the [original] complaint suggests there is a strong public policy that justifies the alleged discriminatory pricing," Judge Brian Currey wrote in the appeal court's 3-0 ruling. "Accordingly, we swipe left" -- a joke based on the app's popular "swipe to reject" gesture -- and reverse." That reversal hinges largely on California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which was passed in 1959 and protects "equal access to public accommodations and prohibits discrimination by business establishments." The ruling noted that some business-led discrimination is allowed by California state law, but it agreed with Candelore's argument that Tinder's age-targeted pricing is not.
Multiple execs had to agree to this (Score:5, Insightful)
I can imagine one person having a brain fart and doing something stupid. One person doesn't decide the pricing and change it at a whom, though. This had to be multiple executives agreeing this pricing discrimination sounded like a good idea.
Who the heck in running Tinder? I wonder how many of them have graduated high school, because this is a pretty obvious screw up. I notice the various bios of their CEO don't list any other jobs he's ever had. Looks a bit like this may be his first job.
Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this (Score:5, Interesting)
Anything is possible as a business, until law enforcement decides you're acting in a criminal manner, or someone sues you for infringing upon their freedoms. Discrimination by age is such an infringement. Most companies are too small for people to try and sue them though.
Uber's whole business model hinges on the idea that non-commercially licenced drivers can operate a taxi service in any city, irregardless of the city/jurisdiction's rules. Then the local taxi group sues Uber after a number of months and then they reach some sort of settlement typically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this (Score:2, Funny)
Thank you, Dr Pedant, for that learned and enlightening commentary.
Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this (Score:4, Interesting)
Thank you, Dr Pedant, for that learned and enlightening commentary.
Speaking English as a second language, I appreciate it if people point me to mistakes like that. It helps me avoid it in the future. Sometimes, a grammar nazi is captain. He just forgot to fly away.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck figuring out which grammar corrections are incorrect or sarcastic (and incorrect).
Re: (Score:2)
Except irregardless is actually a word, and been in use since 1795. Please check your dictionary.
Re: (Score:2)
irregardless
irärdls/Submit
adjective & adverb informal
regardless.
so it is an informal [mispronunciation] of regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
What if you're operating without a lack of regard for something?
Re: (Score:3)
Irridiculous!
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct. The notion that Shakespeare invented words is baseless and a barefaced lie. We must castigate people who violate fair play by spreading this sanctimonious nonsense, even though they are multitudinous /s
http://grammar.yourdictionary.... [yourdictionary.com]
http://shakespeare-w.com/engli... [shakespeare-w.com]
And yeah, I realise 'invented' and 'first known user of' aren't quite the same thing.
Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this (Score:5, Interesting)
What about senior discounts at restaurants, how is that allowed? Honestly curious.
Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this (Score:5, Informative)
Its a reasonable question in this context.
The principle reason for "Senior discounts" is that elderly folks are often poorer (Not always, theres plenty of rich old folk), and have likely been of a "service to the community" in the sense of having lived through conscription wartimes, and so on. So therefore its reasonable to offer a discount to the elderly, in the same way some businesses might offer a discount to the disable or unemployed.
Tinder in fact argued that in this case users under 30 where more likely to be "budget constrained" than a user over 30 and thus it justifed the policy. The supreme court considered this in detail and noted that the difference is that a 25 and a 35 both have a capacity to earn more money, however a retired senior citizen or a child does not have that capacity and thus the underlying generalizations are different, particularly as the same legislature that enables the anti discrimination laws also limits the ability of the very elderly or the very young to work and thus it carves out its own excemptions there to permit discounts for seniors and children.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but older folks being poorer is a relic of the past. Today, the boomer generation is the "old folks" (which are arguably the richest senior citizens ever, and most likely going to remain it) while "generation internship" is what you find among the younger workforce.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, people over the age of 50 are trying to save money to retire which opens up higher paying positions for younger people. Unless, of course, you want older people to work until they are 70 or 80 and thus keeping all the high paying senior positions for themselves.
Old people, on the median, are not poor (Score:2)
The principle reason for "Senior discounts" is that elderly folks are often poorer (Not always, theres plenty of rich old folk), and ...
Sorry, but older folks being poorer is a relic of the past. Today, the boomer generation is the "old folks" (which are arguably the richest senior citizens ever, and most likely going to remain it) while "generation internship" is what you find among the younger workforce.
Please provide evidence of your assertion.
That's an answerable question. Here's data: http://www.rcaemergingwealth.c... [rcaemergingwealth.com]
Looks like income rises until about age 35, then flattens out somewhere between 35 and 45, but does not go down significantly for old people.
That graph is median income, by the way, so this effect is not just a small number of "rich" old people skewing the average up.
Re: (Score:2)
Please provide evidence of your assertion.
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
http://business.financialpost.... [financialpost.com]
https://www.denverpost.com/201... [denverpost.com]
https://money.usnews.com/money... [usnews.com]
https://www.moneywise.co.uk/ne... [moneywise.co.uk]
https://mashable.com/2014/11/2... [mashable.com] (a bit off, but works for boomers just as well)
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/i... [nielsen.com]
https://www.buxtonco.com/blog/... [buxtonco.com]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_... [bbc.co.uk]
https://www.amazon.de/Boomer-N... [amazon.de] (don't worry, not a make-me-rich link)
https://www.bisnow.com/nationa... [bisnow.com]
And so on, but I think that should suffice. Pick the publicat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, judges are mostly old men, so ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed at what point? Besides, the elderly who are well off can try making more income off their investments. Or getting some sort of part-time job (obviously, this doesn't work for everyone, but I'm planning to retire while still healthy).
Re: (Score:2)
The supreme court considered this in detail and noted that the difference is that a 25 and a 35 both have a capacity to earn more money,
Not to pick nits, but notice that this was a Los Angeles appellate court ruling on a California law. So the supreme court wasn't involved and if it gets involved, it will just be the CA supreme court so it wouldn't matter to the rest of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would counter argue that younger people on average earn less. [Insert bell curve]
20 somethings as a group would certainly earn less than 30 somethings as a group. 30 somethings often have additional costs though. Children, alimony, etc. 20 somethings probably have more disposable income than 30 somethings because they have less responsibilities and less past baggage to pay for.
Re: (Score:2)
Or handicap-like expectant mother parking spots, just to be nice?
Here, however, they pretend to offer additional services (e.g. "My boner is extra hard for your picture!") and not just a different price.
I guess a young person could sign up for senior plus service, but the reverse is not true, and that's the discriminatiin under CA law.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In employment law, people between 40 and 65 are a protected class, while younger people aren't. How good an idea this is (I think the protected class should extend to Social Security full retirement age, personally, and that's 66 for me) is left as an exercise for the flame wars.
Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you act as if it's a stupid idea? The biggest correlation with wealth, more than anything else, is how old you are; and that's a fact that doesn't change by which generation you're in, family upbringing, or anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd think that there other big correlations with wealth. Being born into a wealthy family. Living in the wealthy part of town are two that seem to correlate with wealth. I see a lot of people who look like they should be retired, working shit jobs, McDonalds, Walmart, the Grocery store, all having a good percentage of old people working at close to minimum wage jobs. The stupid kids can get labouring jobs that pay 50-70+% above minimum wage, at least while their bodies last.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so your change request as a Business Analyst at Tinder, is that you're going to modify the form, so that where it currently asks for users' DoB, you're going to replace that with "How much money does your family have?" because we're changing the strategy that we're going to use to optimize the market-segmentation use case.
Re: (Score:2)
That information is commercially available. Why wouldn't they use it?
Re:Multiple execs had to agree to this (Score:5, Funny)
If you want to be pedantic about it I'm pretty sure number of digits in your bank account is the biggest correlation with wealth.
Pedantically, the absolute value of wealth. 401k t (Score:2)
> If you want to be pedantic about it I'm pretty sure number of digits in your bank account is the biggest correlation with wealth.
If you want to be pedantic about it I'm pretty sure number of digits in your bank account is the biggest correlation with THE ABSOLUTE VALUE of wealth (it's often negative).
Plenty of people have five digits in their bank account and six digits of debt.
If you were only going to look at one account, I'd guess the best correlation may be the 401k / IRA balance. The amount of hom
Re: (Score:2)
Here I was more worried I was forgetting things like material and liquid assets. (Jeff Bezos, most likely, doesn't actually have 12 digits in his bank account.)
Also, *woosh*
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, I had the financial acumen to be the right age to buy a house before the real estate market went kablooie, and to go to college when it was still pretty inexpensive. Millennials are wastrels who feel the have to go to school while it's expensive, instead of forty years ago, and who don't plan to buy houses around 2000.
Re: (Score:2)
back in the basement gramps!
No, more like the suite.. Getting ready for a cross country vacation, and unless you are unlucky, you'll be here some day. Enjoy!
It's not stupid - lots of businesses do it (Score:3)
So what they were trying to do wasn't stupid. They just implemented it
Re: (Score:2)
With students and especially children, society has decided that it's okay to favour them because students should concentrate more on study than earning and because bringing up children is highly beneficial for society but very expensive for the parent.
In some places the same logic applies to older people. They might have a fixed income (pension), and in fact some governments give them extra benefits like the UK's winter fuel allowance (because so many were freezing to death).
So the real question here is if
Re: (Score:2)
This had to be multiple executives
You have a well over inflated view of how much "executives" have an impact in the day to day operation of the business. Sure one person didn't do this, but I'll bet you a mars bar it was a small relatively lowly sales team.
Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this (Score:3)
I have very little knowledge of Tinder and my perception is that it is an application of finding casual sex partners, mostly.
If that is not the reason to immediately realize how antisocial the whole idea is, I do not know what is.
Following un-ethical behavior of salesmen is just a logical continuation.
Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this (Score:4, Insightful)
AFAIK, it is for finding casual sex partners. I don't know that it's inherently anti-social, if anything, it's at least matching men and women with a shared intent of sexual involvement and potentially reduces some of the chances for sexual harassment which happens when one party wants sex but uses poor cues or inappropriate settings to seek it.
It doesn't surprise me that they would charge older people more. My expectation is that older men prefer younger women, have less access to younger women in their real lives, and would thus be inclined to overwhelm a service like Tinder. Tinder lives and dies by its ability to attract young women to the platform, and these young women are probably generally interested in partners in their peer group, not 40-something men.
If Tinder is flooded with older men, it will lose appeal to younger women and probably fail as a platform as women leave it due to too few desired partner matches. So it makes sense that Tinder wants to charge older people more for access. This will reduce the number of men on their platform and compensate them somewhat for whatever marginal loss in female users it causes.
I'm not sure any of this is unfair to older users. In real life, age discrimination against sexual partners happens. A 45 year old man simply is less desirable to 25 year old women.
Re: (Score:2)
The differences is that paid users have unlimited requests, and the less appealing men need those request to make a match, because of the 80/20 rule https://medium.com/@worstonlin... [medium.com]
Re: Multiple execs had to agree to this (Score:2)
This problem is easily resolved by personal preferences: just set a default setting that the person wants to see others only in his age range.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that relying on honestly reported ages won't result in much success.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, if I see an attractive woman significantly less than half my age, I tend to fantasize hooking her up with my son. I may be atypical in this.
Re: (Score:2)
This is like the old argument over ladies' night pricing at clubs and bars. The lower rates are intended to equalize the gender ratio, not 'discriminate against men'.
Re: (Score:2)
"The lower rates are intended to equalize the gender ratio, not 'discriminate against men'."
Do you honestly not see that as the same thing?
They want to discriminate against men to equalize the gender ratio.
I'm not even saying it's a bad thing, but that's exactly what they're doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well there are other acceptable discriminations like haircuts
Which doesn't actually fall along the lines of sex. If you're a woman and get a basic butch haircut, then your overcharging should be considered illegal discrimination.
Tinder suxs anyway... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Tinder suxs anyway... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Tinder was just for meeting people for sex. I only use Grindr, so I have no idea.
They're both for helping people make fire. Gather some Tinder, apply friction with Grindr and -- poof -- fire. The real action is at the next step using Blazer, though it's a bit overrun with stoners, for some reason. Swipers beware.
Re: (Score:2)
Tinder sucks. No way to know more about a person than pictures and brief one-liner.
That's probably part of the success. If you think someone is interesting beyond a picture and one-line-description, you have to TALK. Like normal people, you know? But as I understand tinder, that happens only with people who find your picture at least mildly ok, too. So it's basically old-school flirting, but lowering that entry bar of that embarrassing "first step"
Also easy enough to create throwaway accounts. OKCupid and similar free dating services keep the bar higher than a gallery of random mugshots.
But will a random mugshot be successful?
So, that means... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Gonna be a tough sell if kids are also discounted (a la movie tickets).
Re: (Score:2)
Senior discounts are okay because they are "retired persons" discounts that happen to be based on a rough heuristic. And it works cause it's hard for me to imagine a 66-year-old who works complaining, or a jury being sympathetic to a retired 40-year-old suing to save $1.
Re: (Score:2)
But you have to ask, has that discrimination been found to be unlawful in a court of law like say Ladies Night [wikipedia.org] or is it untested, or even specifically allowed?
I would have guessed this was untested as this is a win-win. Women get cheaper drinks, men get a place with more women. I'm wondering who was stupid enough to sue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey wait a minute (Score:2)
You understood it all wrong, guys.
They're not charging more for the older users, they're charging less for the younger users! Big difference!
a rare victory (Score:2)
unintended consequences (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really stupid.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Your argument is non-valid. Tinder users can specify the age brackets of the people they are shown. If you only want to see [20,28], you'll never be shown the older people.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheaper for Younger (Score:5, Funny)
I should also have to pay less if I'm only targeting the young women!
Banks do this stuff in Europe (Score:2)
The bastards (Score:2)
I have to sue my local cinema and zoo, they also charge younger and older customers less (under 12 and over 65) also my railway is even worse, they let customers under 12 years use it for free.
Re: (Score:2)
AARP membership
AARP wouldn't be a proxy. It would be the business that discriminates by age.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you don't have to be retired either. Virtually every web site that talks about them lists age requirements, but they do not. In fact, they offer a discount for those under 50.
Since their own web site doesn't list requirements, I assume they're relying on non-authoritative sources to perpetuate the lies and remain "exclusive." Even their own web site says "Anyone 50 and over can get all the great member benefits" but doesn't specify anything for those under 50.
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance companies are explicitly excepted in the laws.
Re: Can we sue car insurance companies? (Score:2)
No doubt the insurance companies spend handsomely on bribes, errrr, I mean lobbying.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are they? Insurance companies charge by the statistics. If younger people are statistically more likely to cost more, that's not the Insurer's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you get the memo? Statistics or reality mean jack shit, what matters is that if you find out that (insert minority group here) is statistically more likely to do (insert bad thing here), you're WRONG! Axiomatically.
Re:Can we sue car insurance companies? (Score:4, Insightful)
The stats make sense though, in auto insurance statistically those under 25 are riskier drivers. In heath insurance and life insurance those that are older are statistically more expensive/less profitable.
and over 60 to but my active 90 year grandmother pays less than me even though she is a greater risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Why do I go to the Zoo and pay $20 for myself and $10 for my kid then?"
There are probably different reasons for it.
Kids are always accompanied by adults, so the zoo still sells a full priced ticket (or two) to a family. Also, it is an incentive to go with your kid rather than leave him at home. The age cutoff for cheaper tickets is usually quite low (7 or so), so the cheaper/free ticket is also offered as a convenience for the parents (a 2 year old kid probably won't get a lot out of the visit, but you take him there when visiting the zoo with your older kid so as not to leav
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's much more complex t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"public policy" could be meant literally: The Zoo can do it because it posts all prices at the gates
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And discounts to under 35yrs aren't encouraging them to become frequent visitors?
Re:Senior Discounts. (Score:4, Interesting)
Not necessarily. Seniors are mostly retired and have lots of free time during the day when others are at work. By getting them to come more frequently you are filling up time with few regular customers and so you are using your employees and space more efficiently.
Re: (Score:2)
While were at it lets stop the practice of senior discounts.
Goodness no! I'm over half way there now. That would suck if all my life I've been paying more because I'm not a senior citizen, and then have that discount taken away when I'm just a decade or two away.
I'm about to flip (Score:2)
All my life I have shared your opinion, but I'll be 50 pretty soon. Hell yes I'm joining AARP, just for the discounts alone (a single weekend of hotel discount pays for a whole year of membership). I'm going to be allowed to use the exercise machines at my municipal senior centers too, so maybe next election I'll vote for those bonds instead of the usual voting against them.
I'm totally going to start exploiting every stupid edge that previous old people (my former enemies) left in place for me. I might eve
Re: (Score:2)
there are KKK and Neo-Nazi leaders on Facebook that haven't been banned yet.
Yes but banning the is the president wouldn't work. If he weren't allowed to spew shit online he would just call press conferences when he gets board and shat it out on TV. So they don't bother to kick him off.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't work? It doesn't even parse.
Re: (Score:2)
At most, the memo could either claim or suggest it, barring actual evidence being provided by it. And as the memo in question was put together by someone who clearly has at least one horse in the race, it would need to be corroborated. Keep in mind, if a Democrat puts out a memo pointing the other way, it is subject to the same skepticism. Now an actual report, with appropriate legal citation, would carry more weight. At most, a memo points toward a path for investigation, so we shall see.
Frankly, I fully e
Re: (Score:2)
They could charge you more if you had been on fewer dates/were a virgin. Discriminating prices based on age (within the working age population) is illegal, as is discriminating prices based on race or religion.
Re: (Score:2)
"serious people"? I thought tinder was meant to be more casual.
Re: (Score:2)
Well... you learn to ride on older horses...
That was the motto of a guy back at school who would frequent an ~40 bar. (This was pre-internet) And quite successfully.
you can drink under 21 in WI (Score:2)
Yes. Persons under age 21 may possess and consume alcohol beverages if they are with their parents, guardians or spouses of legal drinking age; but this is at the discretion of the licensee. The licensed premise may choose to prohibit consumption and possession of alcohol beverages by underage persons.
oxymoronic legalisms... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why California issues IDs through the Department of Motor Vehicles which are equivalent to a driver's license in all ways other than licensing you to drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The older you are the harder (no pun intended) it is to find a willing partner... so why not upcharge?
I'm gonna go reach out and extend an idea.... When an imminent disaster is boring down on a community.. its illegal to take advantage of that (i.e. upcharging for plywood, gasoline, bottled water etc. in the path of a hurricane).
So by proxy.. if you're no longer a chick magnet and your prospects (imminent disaster) are being limited by an act of God (Hurricane... Getting Older) a business decides to become predatory and charge more for those that don't have the mojo that their younger folk do.. This is an issue. It is leveraging human hope.. based on the mathematics that your hope of finding a suitable partner decreases as your age increases... and these R-Tards are profiting by the likely degradation of a positive outcome based on your age... means you should be up-charged for your chance to be happy.
Along your line of thinking then...
What if they charged more if you're ugly. Subjective I know, but would it be acceptable if they had a small panel of judges who flipped through and marked the ugly people and charged them more?
There are laws against discriminating against age, religion, sex, race, national origin, etc. There are no laws against discriminating against ugly people. Yet, somehow that sounds even more distasteful.