======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ==== ======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ====
Tinder, the Uber for getting your rocks off, has taught us a lot about the dating game. It’s taught us that a clever #NAMEGAGS2018 line can get you laid or earn you a couple tasteful nudes. That sometimes you really are lonely enough to carry on a one-sided conversation with an obvious sex bot. That life is not measured by the number of right swipes we take, but by the right swipes that take our breath away (aka the girl who claims to be “really into ass play” in her bio).
But while the dating app was busy teaching, it probably could have stood to learn a thing or two — such as the importance of respecting one’s elders. That’s a lesson that, if truly taken to heart, probably would have saved Tinder a lot of trouble considering that it has recently found itself embroiled in a lawsuit that alleges discrimination against older users in the form of age-based fees.
A California court has reversed a judge’s previous decision to stalemate a lawsuit filed against Tinder. The suit, filed by Allan Candelore and an assumed class of California Tinder users over 30, claimed Tinder’s age-based fee was in violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and Unfair Competition law.
The dating app charges users over 30 $19.99 a month, compared to $9.99 or $14.99 for younger users.
I don’t care if you’re 18 or 118;
everyone mostly everyone deserves a fair and equal shot at love. Hey, they may be all dried up or shooting out dust at this point, but even old ass folks (anyone over 30), despite being all wrinkled and washed up, get urges. The single 45-year-old father of three who’s speed-swiping on the shitter should be afforded the exact same opportunity as the twenty-something TKE who’s also speed-swiping whilst expelling excrement. This is America, after all.
Tinder has kind of backed itself into a corner at the moment, but you have to respect their initial attempt to spin this — because it almost worked.
Tinder has previously argued that the difference in price should not be viewed as discrimination toward older users but rather a financial help to those who are younger and less able to afford a more expensive monthly purchase.
“Younger users are just as excited about Tinder Plus, but are more budget constrained, and need a lower price to pull the trigger,” Tinder’s Vice President of Corporate Communications Rosette Pambakian said in 2015.
So close, yet so far. Rosette forgot one small detail: old people can be poor and/or cheap, too.
The judges who reversed the initial decision argued that this logic is flawed.
“No matter what Tinder’s market research may have shown about the younger users’ relative income and willingness to pay for the service, as a group, as compared to the older cohort, some individuals will not fit the mold,” the judges wrote in a statement.
“Some older consumers will be ‘more budget constrained’ and less willing to pay than some in the younger group,” they continued.
Ha! Take that market research and shove it, Tinder! The only market these old timers care about are of the Boston variety, thank you very much..
Image via Pixabay