Class Action: Tinder Engaged In ‘Bait-and-Switch,’ Charges Older Men More

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Tinder, Inc. was hit with a class action lawsuit in a California federal court, alleging that the dating app engaged in a false advertising scheme by marketing Tinder as free and then later requiring users to pay for the service and for allegedly discriminating against users based on age and sex.

Plaintiff Michael Manapol, a California resident, claims that he downloaded the Tinder app, which is a dating app for smartphones, in early 2014.

Tinder works by creating a profile for users through information on someone’s Facebook page and then finds potential matches for someone within a geographical radius, making suggestions of possible matches based on the user’s location. The user then has the option to either like or pass on the suggestions by swiping either right or left to approve or pass on a potential match.

With Tinder, if both users swipe to the right and “like” each other, then a “Tinder will create a direct line of communication between the individuals, and allow them to start messaging one another.”

When Manapol downloaded the Tinder app onto his smartphone, he believed that the app was free, based on advertisements he had seen, such as a statement which said, “To download the free app Tinder by Tiner Inc., get iTunes now,” and because it was advertised as a “free download.”

Manapol says in his Tinder class action lawsuit that he “actually relied upon [Tinder’s] representations that downloading the app would permit [him] to meaningfully use [Tinder’s] app uninterrupted and for the foreseeable future.”

However, Tinder began “began informing consumers on or about March 2, 2015, that consumers would no longer be able to utilize Tinder for the functions which consumers had previously enjoyed free use.”

Tinder users were told that if they wanted to keep using “Tinder uninterrupted” they would have to “purchase an account-level subscription of Tinder Plus, at a cost of at least $2.99 per month.”

Manapol says in his Tinder class action lawsuit that “specifically” he and other Tinder users were told “that they would no longer be able to enjoy unlimited swipes unless they signed up for a Tinder Plus account.”

He alleges that this “abrupt policy change constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice,” which Manapol claims he learned about in the middle of using the app one day when he was informed that he was “out of likes” and would have to enroll in Tinder Plus to get “unlimited likes.”

Manapol explains in his Tinder class action lawsuit that he “reluctantly purchased a one-month subscription to the Tinder Plus app, for $19.99.”

In addition to the “bait-and-switch” allegations, the California man also says that Tinder is engaging in discrimination based on age and sex by charging men who are over 30 more to subscribe to Tinder Plus.

“In or about March 2015, after rolling out its new forced migration to Tinder Plus, Tinder announced publicly to NPR that it would be charging $9.99 to consumers for these services (at a 50 percent discount), but notably, that any individual who was over 30 years of age would be charged $19.99 for the identical services,” the class action lawsuit claims.

“Tinder continues to make such discounts available to customers on the sole basis of their age,” Manapol adds.

“However, women receive more favorable swiping terms that men, which is akin to free entrance to Ladies Night,” the California man alleges, which he says is a practice “deemed illegal by the California Supreme Court.”

Manapol is looking to represent five different nationwide classes for those who downloaded Tinder before March 2.

He charging Tinder with violating California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, California’s Automatic Purchase Renewal Statute, California’s False Advertising Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

A similar class action lawsuit was filed against Tinder in March, right after the changes occurred.

Manapol is represented by John P. Kristensen and David L. Weisberg of Kristensen Weisberg LLP.

Counsel information for the defense was not available.

The Tinder Class Action Lawsuit is Michael Manapol v. Tinder Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03175, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

UPDATE: On Feb. 17, 2016, a California judge decided to dismiss the Tinder class action lawsuit that claimed the dating app discriminates against customers based on age and gender, stating that the plaintiff didn’t show how he was harmed by the allegations.