19 Cal. App. 5th 1138
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Tinder offers a free app and a paid premium tier (Tinder Plus); in March 2015 it adopted age‑tiered pricing: users ≥30 charged $19.99/month, younger users charged $9.99 or $14.99.
- Candelore sued on behalf of California consumers aged 30 and over, alleging age discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code §51) and the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200).
- Complaint quotes a public statement by a Tinder executive saying market testing showed younger users were “more budget constrained,” which Tinder relied on to justify lower prices for them.
- Tinder demurred; trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, finding the pricing rationally based on market testing and not arbitrary, and rejecting UCL claims.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held that a blanket, class‑based price difference tied to age (a personal characteristic) can constitute arbitrary discrimination under the Unruh Act and therefore supports Unruh and UCL claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tinder's age‑based pricing violates the Unruh Act | Candelore: charging ≥30 users more than younger users is arbitrary age discrimination because it treats individuals as members of an age class rather than assessing individuals | Tinder: price tiers reasonably use age as a proxy for income; market testing shows younger users are more budget constrained so the distinction is non‑arbitrary | Held: Violation. Blanket, class‑based price differences based on age are arbitrary under Unruh when they rest on generalized assumptions that may not apply to all individuals |
| Whether the asserted business/public‑policy justifications (increasing access, profit maximization) validate the age classification | Candelore: no compelling public policy or statutory scheme justifies singling out ≥30 users for higher prices | Tinder: promoting access to younger users and profit motives are legitimate and rational business objectives | Held: Justifications insufficient as a matter of law on the complaint. Profit motive and increased patronage do not overcome Unruh’s ban on arbitrary status‑based discrimination; only strong public policy or statutory authorization can justify such classifications |
| Whether the complaint states a UCL claim (unlawful and unfair prongs) | Candelore: Unruh violation makes the practice "unlawful" under the UCL; the pricing is also "unfair" because it offends public policy and harms consumers | Tinder: Without an Unruh violation, there is no predicate unlawful act; the practice is a lawful business pricing strategy | Held: Complaint states UCL claims. Unruh violation supports the "unlawful" prong; the pricing also may be "unfair" because it offends the public policy embodied in the Unruh Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson, 30 Cal.3d 721 (Cal. 1982) (Unruh forbids excluding or disfavoring an entire class based on generalized predictions about the class; rights under Unruh are individual in nature)
- Koire v. Metro Car Wash, 40 Cal.3d 24 (Cal. 1985) (profit motive and increased patronage do not justify discriminatory pricing based on personal characteristics)
- Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV, 52 Cal.3d 1142 (Cal. 1991) (Unruh’s purpose to secure equal access; permissible economic distinctions must be criteria any customer can meet)
- Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 36 Cal.4th 824 (Cal. 2005) (personal characteristics in Unruh include traits fundamental to identity; list in statute is illustrative)
- Pizarro v. Lamb's Players Theatre, 135 Cal.App.4th 1171 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (age discrimination violates Unruh if it rests on arbitrary class‑based generalizations)
- Javorsky v. Western Athletic Clubs, Inc., 242 Cal.App.4th 1386 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (upheld an 18–29 discount but treated group‑level income generalizations favorably—a decision the court here criticizes)