Tinder petition asks state Supreme Court to support age-based pricing

Attorneys for the dating app Tinder hope the state Supreme Court will overturn an appellate court ruling that the company's age-based pricing model discriminates against users over 30.

In January, the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles said the pricing model constituted age-based discrimination, ruling Tinder used a blanket generalization about the financial wellbeing of millennials versus other age groups. The court said even a true generalization about a group is not sufficient to disqualify an individual who doesn't fit the generalization.

But Tinder's attorneys at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP argued in their petition for review, filed Monday, that the appellate court was wrong when it ruled that offering discounts to those under 30 is a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

"The Court of Appeal held that offering discounted goods or services in order to help young people -- here, those under 30 -- presumptively constitutes unlawful discrimination even though members of this age group typically have lower incomes and thus less money to spend than adults aged 30 or older," according to the petition.

Tinder is a free dating app, but users over 30 pay $19.99 per month compared to those under 30, who pay $9.99 or $14.99 per month for Tinder Plus, an account with added features. A class of users filed suit against the company claiming other groups, such as senior citizens, were unfairly subject to paying higher fees. Candelore v. Tinder Inc., B270172 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. Jan. 30, 2018).

Tinder said the appellate court ignored a state Supreme Court decision in a case that held age-based pricing is not discrimination so as long as it is not arbitrary or invidious, and instead looked to another Supreme Court decision. Marina Point Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal. 3d 721.

In citing Marina Point, the appellate court focused on the rejection of the defense's argument that families could be excluded from an apartment complex because children as a group are considered "rowdy," the petition said.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs noted the exception for age-based discounts were those protected by legislation, such as children or seniors.

"There are reasons why discounts for seniors are lawful and those reasons just don't exist for the adult, under-30 group. Seniors face discrimination. There are no such statutes protecting people under-30 as a group," class attorney Kimberly Kralowec of the Kralowec Law Firm commented on Wednesday.

Nevertheless, Tinder argued that so-called millennials, who are saddled with college debt and save less money than previous generations, should be one of those protected groups.

"Far from amounting to an invidious act of antisocial discrimination based on irrational stereotype, the under-30 discount here does the opposite; it recognizes that millennials by and large make less money and could use some help," Tinder's petition states.

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips attorney Robert Platt, an attorney for Tinder, did not respond to a request for comment.

Class attorney Al G. Rava of the Rava Law Firm said the appellate court correctly read that Tinder's pricing was wrong under the law, as there are people under 30 who are wealthier than those over 30.

"I hope the Court of Appeal's opinion remains the law in California so that matchmaking services, grocery stores or gas stations cannot charge California consumers over 30 years old, including senior citizens on limited fixed incomes, more than more wealthy and more healthy millennials for a match, food, or gasoline based solely on the consumers' age," said Rava in an email.