Tinder Charged Older People More, Court Rules Age Discrimination
By The Daily Bell Staff - February 09, 2018

Say goodbye to your senior discounts, no cover lady’s nights, and free entry for children.

Unless of course, you think the latest court ruling on discrimination won’t be applied evenly…

The popular dating app Tinder allows you to swipe a user’s picture left to reject a potential match, and swipe right in the hopes that they do the same and you match.

The app is free. But there is a premium version that gives extra bonuses like swiping in a city that you are not currently located in, or the ability to go back if you accidentally swipe left on a hottie.

Turns out, they charged users ages 30+ $19.99 per month, and under 30 year olds just $9.99 per month.

Of course they got sued because that’s what people do in 21st century America.

An appeals court actually said in their decision that they “swipe left.” Cute. They said Tinder cannot charge different rates based on the age of a user because that constitutes age discrimination.

But what is not cute is that businesses are forced to operate by politically correct standards.

What is the difference between Tinder’s pricing structure and giving discounted tickets to events to children under a certain age?

Events and theme parks want parents to fork over more money. Charging the same for kids as adults would disincentivize attendance which means fewer customers.

Tinder wants to incentivize younger users to use their premium service. If you’re older and that makes you mad, no one is forcing you to use Tinder, or pay for their premium subscription.

What about car insurance and rentals. They base their data on statistics and charge younger people more money. Should we all have to pay more in the name of age discrimination?

Places with senior discounts want to attract more customers by appealing to a group of people who might be more cost-conscious, having to stretch their retirement savings.

Tinder said that they are trying to lower costs for younger people who might have less disposable income.

What is the problem with that? Even if it is personally offensive, why should it be illegal? No one is forcing you to give your business to these places.

Ironically, the entire Tinder experience is based on discrimination. Users discriminate based on a picture. People they find unattractive get swiped left into oblivion.

Maybe this guy suing Tinder should have his left swipe option disabled if he hates discrimination so much. Why should he have the right to discriminate based on looks?

Also ironic: the government does force you to live by their own age discrimination.

If you are under 21, you can’t drink. California, where this ruling came from, wants to restrict under 21-year-olds from driving after 11 p.m. or with their friends in the car.

Many bars and liquor stores are instructed to ask anyone who looks under a certain age for their ID.

You can’t run for a seat in the House of Representatives before age 25, Senate before 30, and you have to be 35 years old to be President.

You can’t start taking social security checks until you are 62, even if you earned the required “40 credits” by age 50. And some people who didn’t earn the credits can collect at 62.

As usual, it is a government double standard and a bad precedent.

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap