Case Question

Case 21.2

Candelore v. Tinder, Inc.

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, 19 Cal.App.5th 1138, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 336 (2018).

Facts

Tinder, Inc., owns and operates the dating app Tinder. The free version of Tinder presents

users with photos of potential dates. When a photo appears on the device’s screen, the

user can swipe right to express approval, or swipe left to express disapproval. The

premium service, Tinder Plus, allows users to access additional features of the app for a

monthly fee. Tinder charges consumers who are age thirty and older $19.99 per month

for Tinder Plus, while it charges consumers under the age of thirty only $9.99 or $14.99

per month for the Tinder Plus features.

On behalf of consumers who were over age thirty when they subscribed to Tinder Plus,

Allan Candelore filed a suit in a California state court against Tinder, Inc. Candelore

alleged age-based price discrimination in violation of California’s civil rights statute,

which prohibits arbitrary discrimination by businesses on the basis of personal

characteristics, and the state’s unfair competition law (UCL). The court concluded that

the company’s age-based pricing model was justified by public policies that promote

“profit maximization by the vendor, a legitimate goal in our capitalistic economy.”

Candelore appealed.

Issue

Can an allegation of age-based price discrimination in violation of the state’s civil rights

statute support a claim for a violation of the state’s unfair competition statute?

Decision

Yes. A state intermediate appellate court reversed the judgment of the lower court.

“Tinder’s alleged discriminatory pricing model violates the public policy embodied in the

[civil rights statute, and] the UCL . . . provides an independent basis for relief on the

facts alleged.”

Reason

Society’s interest in increasing the use, by those under the age of thirty, of a premium

online dating app is not compelling enough to justify discriminatory age-based pricing.

Those users over the age of thirty who are less economically advantaged could be

excluded from enjoying the same premium app. Maximizing profits can be an acceptable

business objective that can be advanced by price discrimination. But this goal is no

excuse for a prohibited discriminatory policy. Tinder’s pricing model discriminates

against users over the age of thirty. The complaint alleges a sufficient claim for age

discrimination in violation of the state’s civil rights statute. The UCL prohibits unfair

competition, which includes any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice. The

violation of any law can serve as the basis for a violation of the UCL. Because the

complaint adequately states a claim for a violation of the civil rights statute, the

allegations are sufficient to state a claim under the UCL.

Critical Thinking

● Legal Environment A California statute provides for the waiver of fees at state

university campuses for senior citizens. What distinguishes this differential

treatment from the discriminatory practice at issue in the Candelore case?