Playboy Class Action: Pretty is Free, Ugly Pays, Men Pay More

February 3rd, 2011. By AbiK

In what might seem like a class action ready-made for Attorney Alfred Rava, a gentleman from California—David Long, Jr. —is suing Playboy. Yes, that Playboy.

Why? Well, back in 2009, he apparently attended Playboy’s 3rd Annual White Party at the Playboy Mansion. And, needless to say, it costs money to attend such VIP-guest-only gatherings. Hey, the keys to the kingdom ain’t free. But here’s the thing—Long says he was charged a fair amount more to gain access to the pleasure palace than women guests attending the same fête were charged. Translation: discrimination.

It gets better. The charges against Playboy state that the cost of entry to the big bash was in direct correlation to how good-looking guests were. “Gorgeous ladies” got in for free or a nominal fee; those unfortunate (ie, less attractive and apparently less apt to make good “arm candy”) gals who were not to be deemed “gorgeous” were only (only!) charged $350 per ticket. Long, however, being in the most unattractive group of all—men—was charged $625.

Yes, this begs the question, if you didn’t like the price, why pay?

I could go off on some feminist rant here (I won’t) but one could argue that as women—”gorgeous women”—are typically objectified in the world of Playboy et al, surely you can’t expect “objects” to cough up cash, right? Only real people have the means to pay. And hey, aren’t the guys attending really going for the women who’ll be there? I don’t think that any guys would cough up any amount for a ticket just to hobnob with Hef. The girls are the draw, plain and simple.

So if you back out any feminist feelings—or even just the argument that, hey, you wanted to attend and you paid so get over it—and you just look at this from a pure segmented marketing perspective, well, I suppose it does sound a bit discriminatory. The White Party as a saleable product was not differentiated in any way—no intentional value added—for the male consumer. Inherent value added? Yes—but intentional so as to make it a different product offering for the guys? No. So seemingly the same product should have the same price tag regardless of who’s consuming it.

So Long seeks damages and he’s looking for the court to prohibit Playboy from setting discriminatory prices ever again. At least he’s not looking for a floppy hat, like Alfred Rava was.

Tags: David Long Jr, Playboy, Playboy class action, Playboy Mansion, White Party

This was posted on Thursday, February 3rd, 2011 at 1:53 pm and is filed under Class Action, Discrimination . Feel free to respond, or trackback. Read our comments policy.