US appeals court says Tinder Plus pricing is discriminatory
engadget.com
engadget.com
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.
I was expecting some interesting analysis of how dating platform subscriptions affect different demographics but it's literally just obvious, arbitrary discrimination.
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.
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.
If you don't own a car, the AARP discounts seem to be the same as AAA.
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?
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.
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.
This must explain their terrible earnings and stock performance over the past decade or so.
In other words; a business fundamentally cannot price all of their customers below cost indefinitely, and Netflix is working in the right direction. On the other hand, you can price customers above cost if demand is there, and demand for Tinder is there because their business model relies on exploiting biological addictions in our brains.
The price of software (and any good, theoretically) is rarely priced based on expenses.
Tinder has no licensing to pay.
I paid for Tinder for three months, got a girlfriend, stopped paying them, and hope to never pay them ever again.
That's at least one of the reasons they're more expensive.
That something cost me $10 to build does not mean I mark it up 30% and say job well done. It means I charge $50 if the market will pay it.
Different products with different purposes are priced differently! And just because a product is inexpensive to produce doesn’t mean it’s price has to be low—- especially if a lot of people want it.
You're valuing the service that Tinder is providing in the wrong way. Netflix is offering you the ability to watch movies on demand. Tinder is offering you the ability to get laid.
The fact that Tinder is only $10 more than Netflix is the bit that's amazing.
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.
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.
[Disclosure: I'm not a Tinder user, but fat]
Age discrimination is real, but this is not an instance of it IMO.
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?
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 :)
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.
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.
The real question/issue is is it illegal discrimination? Something can be discrimination but not illegal discrimination.