For the second time, the Ninth Circuit reverses approval of a class action settlement in this case which challenged Tinder’s charging those over 30 more than younger subscribers for its dating services.  The Ninth Circuit finds that the named plaintiff was not an adquate representative of the class because her interest conflicted with that of a large number of class members.  The named plaintiff was bound by an arbitration provision and her individual claims had been ordered to arbitration.  At least 7,000 class members were not bound by arbitration provisions. The named plaintiff had also not vigorously prosecuted the case.  There was no evidence she had taken any discovery before engaging in settlement talks.  Also, she did little to oppose the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of her individual claims.