To 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.

And here is the actual opinion PDF:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B270172.PDF

Is the opposite also "age discrimination"? McDonalds sells coffee at a discount to people over age 55.

In 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.

Right. That isn't an "article" it's a caption.

In 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.

Next up: student discounts and senior discounts.

Right? 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.]

AARP 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.

"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.

> 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?

I pay $10/mo to Netflix, and probably will do for the rest of my life (or theirs). I pay $10/mo to Spotify, and probably will do for the rest of my life (or theirs).

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.

The price you sell something for has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of goods sold, other than it's the lower bound of you (eventually) going out of business.

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.

? The COGS for most software approaches 0 pretty rapidly, so it's just as arbitrary that Spotify charges $10/month for a premium subscription.

The price of software (and any good, theoretically) is rarely priced based on expenses.

Both Spotify and Netflix have to pay a large chunk of that to the copyright holders.

The cost of media services isn't mostly infrastructure; its licensing. When you play a song, they have to pay a certain amount to the rights holders. So they need to figure out the average listening habits across all their listeners then price their subscriptions so that they can pay licensing fees and make profit.

Tinder has no licensing to pay.

You’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.

I 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.

>But at least Netflix prices at cost

This must explain their terrible earnings and stock performance over the past decade or so.

What makes you think Netflix prices at cost?

They definitely price below cost right now, given their financial performance. But they're raising prices literally right now; they're working on averaging up the amount customers pay without shocking customers to better reflect the cost of their services.

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.

Netflix does not price at cost.

Tinder is selling ass, and product over 30 years old is harder to move, and more motivated, so they charge more for it.

Tinder depends on both network effects to become a market leader and overall gender asymmetry to create a network that is very valuable to those who are looking for a match. Those other examples may use network effects, but they don't exploit the overall gender asymmetry to the same extent, making the comparison between the services weak. It's fine if you disagree, but to many people, that $20/month may be worth it if it improves their odds of finding someone.

You’re assuming pricing should be based on cost, but there’s no reason that has to be/should be the case.

Yes! You got it right!

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.

> Netflix can deliver unlimited views of thousands of tv shows and movies for $10/mo

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.

They seem to have real problems delivering messages to users and alerting users when they have a message. Apparently these are unsolved problems.

I don't think the fee is about what they deliver to their users. It's about what they deter.

That's not how economics works.

netflix and a blanket, much cheaper than a date. or the prospect of a date.

Serious question: why are senior discounts not illegal then? Does anyone know? Quick Google search was unenlightening.

Not 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.

I 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.

Thanks for including that. I had forget about that the act. My point still follows, power structures will always write laws that favor them over others.

It's not discrimination to not hire people who are inexperienced. That's called running a business properly. It is discrimination to not hire based on age, any age, but only older workers over 40 are provided protection under U.S.law.

Reading 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]

This seems silly to even let this get to a court. How could this possibly be cheaper than changing the prices and settling?

If 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.

There 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.

They 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.

This 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.

Well, at least one judge says "Yes".

Why don’t you think charging different prices to people of different ages is age discrimination?

Isn’t it already pretty standard? Discounts for children, students, and seniors are all typically age based.

Children'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 :)

"Standard" and "Not discrimination" are not the same thing.

Yes this is clearly not age discrimination, just the prejudicial treatment of different categories of people on the grounds of age.

How is this not age discrimination?

Almost every museum, public transit, swimming pool etc has different prices based on age. Is it discrimination?

Yes, that's why there's laws concerning it.

Are there? Does this law apply to senior/kids discount in California as well? I've never been so I genuinely don't know.

What, that's forbidden in the USA?

By definition, it is, yes.

If 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.

I 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?

So the opinion of black people doesn't matter in terms of race discrimination?

No. What maters is the objective interpretation of the situation and law, not a subjective opinion of anyone.