A federal judge in Florida has made the recommendation that much of a lawsuit against Tinder be dismissed.
Plaintiff Billy Warner filed the case on the grounds that Tinder had violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), Florida Free Gift Advertising Law (FFGAL) and Florida False Advertising Law (FFAL).
Warner felt aggrieved that he had been paying $2.99 and $19.99 for Tinder Plus simultaneously having purchased two separate memberships, and that this mishap breached EFTA regulations.
The judge felt the EFTA “does not require procedures designed to prevent a consumer from purchasing and maintaining two separate subscriptions”.
Warner also raised the issue of Tinder being free initially, but later moving to a freemium model and withdrawing the unlimited swipe feature. He alleged that this was in breach of FFGAL regulation.
The judge stated: “There is nothing in the language of the FGAL to support the plaintiff’s contention that if the product is free, the product must remain free in perpetuity, or that the free item must function in a particular manner.”
The judge felt Tinder may have been in breach of the FDUTPA, as the billing practices could have mislead the consumer. Tinder’s motion to dismiss this aspect of the case was denied.
Lastly, the judge dismissed the claim that Tinder was a place of public accommodation (and that it should adjust its practices according to FCRA legislation). She states: “The plaintiff offers no legal support for his contention that a phone-based app should be considered a place of public accommodation”.
Read more here.