Did the dating app Tinder discriminate against a 36-year-old woman because of her age? Tel Aviv District Court Judge Rachel Barkai rejected a request for a class action lawsuit against the company that operates Tinder, ruling that providing a discount to young people up to the age of 29 does not constitute discrimination and even charged the applicant NIS 25,29. In California, of all places, Tinder pledged to compensate customers over the age of <> with millions of dollars and also pledged to cease its age-based pricing policy.
According to the court filing, a 36-year-old woman claimed that some users of the platform are discriminated against based on age. According to her, this discrimination occurs in paid services, and is reflected in the fact that the company charges its customers aged 29 and over twice the price on average compared to younger users under the age of 29 for the exact same services. The plaintiff argued in the application that various publications and its examination indicate that it is easy to discern that for Tinder Plus services (on all types of packages), users aged 29 and over will be forced to pay double the price of users under the age of 29. The group damage was estimated at NIS 43 million, while the applicant's personal damage was NIS 323.
The plaintiff further argued that after the suit was filed, the assumption was canceled, and the very fact that the respondent canceled a discount given to young users constitutes an admission by a litigant and shows that the respondent recognizes the wrongful discrimination it committed, and therefore canceled it.
Tel Aviv District Court, Photo: Gideon Markowitz
On the other hand, Tinder argued that the prohibition on age discrimination is not a blanket prohibition and that each case should be examined on its own merits as to whether it is a permissible distinction. According to it, the aforementioned discount given by it to younger users is intended to help them, due to the fact that young users are interested in using premium services, but their willingness to pay for these services is low compared to older users, due to their financial situation. It was further argued that by providing the discount to young users, the user experience of using the Tinder service is enhanced for them and for other users of the Tinder service, without harming users who are not in the younger group.In summary, the court ruled that Tinder's age distinction in pricing
Its services between young users and others is a permissible distinction that does not indicate wrongful discrimination. "Setting a tariff for young people up to the age of 29 clearly reflects the age of young people in our country, who, as a result of the duration of military service and the period of studies that continue thereafter, reach economic stability only in their late 20s, i.e. the age of 29. Setting a discounted rate for this group of users is intended to make it easier and more considerate of them. This is a legitimate purpose that promotes the provision of a benefit to a young population and thus incentivizes young people to join Tinder Premium services, a move that increases the user pool and expands the circle of dating," wrote Justice Rachel Barkai in her decision.
"I do not believe that I am facing a case of prohibited discrimination intended to harm a disadvantaged group. The alleged harm is in the group of adults over the age of 29, and it cannot be said that we are dealing with a powerful injury that perpetuates discrimination or prejudice or discriminatory hostility. We are dealing with a permissible distinction designed to make it easier for young users who wish to use Tinder Premium services, without excluding other users. It is doubtful whether this can cause any emotional harm to the applicant or any of her peers."
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us