You have full access to this open access article. Love, sex, and physical intimacy are some of the most desired goods in life and they are increasingly being sought on dating apps such as Tinder, Bumble, and Badoo. In this article, I argue that there are strong moral grounds and, in countries with laws against unconscionable contracts, legal ones for thinking that the sale of such visibility boosts should be regulated, if not banned altogether.
To do so, I raise two objections against their unfettered sale, namely that it exploits the impaired autonomy of certain users and that it creates socio-economic injustices. Such special treatment does not come cheap. Should this person want greater visibility still, he or she will need to pay a hefty 30 EUR for a 3-hour Super-Boost; 53 EUR for a 6-hour one; and 98 EUR for a hour one, which in the last two cases will well exceed the monthly subscription fee that users with these characteristics pay for the most expensive membership 30 EUR for a Tinder Platinum membership.
In this article, I argue that there are strong moral grounds and, in countries with laws against unconscionable contracts, legal ones for thinking that the sale of visibility boosts ought to be regulated, if not banned altogether. To do so, I raise two objections against their unfettered sale, namely that it exploits the impaired autonomy of certain users Sect. The final section concludes Sect. While the freedom to make contracts is a great good on which much of our economic prosperity and welfare depends, few countries give legal persons full discretion over the terms of their contracts.
In most jurisdictions, there are laws that seek to ensure a threshold level of fairness cf. Thal, Relief on the ground of unconscionable conduct will be granted when unconscientious advantage is taken of an innocent party whose will is overborne so that it is not independent and voluntary, just as it will be granted when such advantage is taken of an innocent party who, though not deprived of an independent and voluntary will, is unable to make a worthwhile judgment as to what is in his best interest.
As Fullagar had stated in Blomley v Ryan , p. The circumstances adversely affecting a party, which may induce a court of equity either to refuse its aid or to set a transaction aside, are of great variety and can hardly be satisfactorily classified. Among them are poverty or need of any kind, sickness, age, sex, infirmity of body or mind, drunkenness, illiteracy or lack of education, lack of assistance or explanation where assistance or explanation is necessary.
