A California appellate court has revived a proposed class action claiming Tinder illegally charges older users more for the enhanced version of its dating app.

Tinder had convinced a trial court in Los Angeles to dismiss the lawsuit. The company's lawyers at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips had argued Tinder's pricing was based on market research showing that younger users, which Tinder charged as little as $9.99 for Tinder Plus, had lower relative incomes and were less willing to pay for additional app features than the 30-plus audience, who were charged $19.99.

But in a 26-page published decision issued Monday, the Third District Court of Appeal found that Tinder's age-based pricing violated the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act and Unfair Competition Law by relying upon “an arbitrary, class-based, generalization about older users' incomes as a basis for charging them more than younger users.”

“Were Tinder's justification sufficient, generalizations about the relative incomes of different age groups could be employed to rationalize higher prices for all consumers 30 and older in even the most essential areas of commerce—such as grocery shopping, gasoline purchases, etc.—even in instances where an individual did not in fact enjoy the economic advantages that are presumed about his or her age group as a whole,” wrote Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Brian Currey, sitting on the Third District pro tem.

Currey, who was joined in the opinion by Third District Justices Lee Smalley Edmon and Luis Lavin, found that regardless of what Tinder's market research showed about younger users as a group, some individuals “would not fit the mold.”

“Some older consumers will be 'more budget constrained' and less willing to pay than some in the younger group,” Currey wrote. The judge adopted the parlance of the popular dating app, writing, “Accordingly, we swipe left, and reverse.”

Manatt's Robert Platt and Tinder representatives didn't immediately respond to messages Tuesday.

The decision is a win for named plaintiff Allan Candelore and his lawyers, Alfred Rava of San Diego's Rava Law Firm and Kimberly Kralowec of the The Kralowec Law Group in San Francisco.

Kralowec said in a phone interview Tuesday the decision is a “very significant equal rights victory for California consumers.”

“I think it's very significant that the court held that before an age-based price differential can be approved there has to be legislative action recognizing that the particular group needs special protection,” Kralowec said. She noted that discounts for seniors and children are lawful since the legislature has recognized the need for special protections for children and seniors.