Class action settlements reached before class certification face a high hurdle to approval. Here, the district court abused its discretion in approving a settlement of claims that Tinder violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code 52) by charging those over 29 more to use its premium services than younger users. The district court undervalued the worth of the claims by saying it thought a defendant-friendly decision in another similar case was more persuasive than a plaintiff-friendly decision in another without noting that the settlement class included members of the class in the latter case. The district court also overvalued the relief granted by the settlement. The agreement to eliminate age-based price differentials benefited only new customers, who were by definition not class members. And on the claims made settlement, Tinder ended up paying only $45,000 to the 0.7% of class members who filed claims. In addition, the trial court ignored red flags of collusion–a clear sailing clause, generous attorney fees for little class recovery, and a reverter clause allowing Tinder to recoup any attorney fees no awarded to plaintiff’s attorneys. The trial court also abused its discretion in awarding plaintiffs attorney fees based on a percentage of recovery basis while according substantial value to the promise not to charge new customers different prices based on age. Not only did class members not benefit from that provision, but Tinder complied with it by raising prices from the under-29 group, rather than reducing prices for the over-29 group.