MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data • Hacker News Board

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#81

Post by notyourday » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 5:46 PM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #25

Someone1234 wrote: post #10

If a private individual did the things set out here they'd be criminally liable. When a company executive orders employees to do these things, they're not facing any criminal complaint at all (any of them). See also Wells Fargo multiple thefts (both fraudulent accounts with fees, and literally entire homes/all possessions). It is pretty evident that many laws are constructed (e.g. CFAA) wherein there's one rule for i…

If corps are people, maybe they should receive jail sentences as such - and then their executives & beneficial owners can carry them out based on liability. A CEO that takes full control and makes a one-man-shop would therefore be fully liable for any sentence received, and can only avoid this be sharing control.

> If corps are people, maybe they should receive jail sentences as such - and then their executives & beneficial owners can carry them out based on liability. A CEO that takes full control and makes a one-man-shop would therefore be fully liable for any sentence received, and can only avoid this be sharing control.

Not shareholders but the officers and directors of the company. We already have this for financials under Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. There was lots of whining that they could not possibly sign off on it because the financials are too complex and with personal criminal and civil liability for CEO/CFO there would be no CEOs/CFOs that would take it. Act got passed and, as if by magic, CEOs and CFOs decided that taking personally the criminal and civil liability was OK.

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#82

Post by TameAntelope » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

thirtyseven wrote: post #69

jermaustin1 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MoviePass could have survived longer if they had more money, and a different business model. The problem is they were letting you go to movies at AMC and Cinemark for less than they bought the tickets, and both AMC and Cinemark said they wouldn't negotiate lower prices for them. They could have had a small but cult business contracting with smaller theater chains, but they didn't. They could have also bought tickets…

Thanks for the free tickets! Just curious, what was your motivation for investing so heavily if you knew the business model was dumb?

Not the guy you asked, but he just listed a half-dozen or so things he probably expected them to expand into that were promising/could have worked out, so I'm guessing he invested hoping they'd do those things, and was pissed when they didn't.

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#83

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #24

Unpopular opinion, but MoviePass could have survived a lot longer if they had more funding. I think there could have been a real opportunity with establishing themselves the main funnel to getting consumers to physical theaters. They couldn't hold on long enough to see what could be possible with such a moat.

I think their main mistake was antagonizing the big theater chains. They should've had their hand outstretched to the chains, consistently, from the very beginning.

The (probably smaller) chains that play ball and negotiate selling cheaper tickets to moviepass get rewarded with more foot traffic, the chains that don't play ball get punished in small ways.

By gently and gradually steering traffic away from AMC, they would've put themselves in a much better position for negotiation.

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#84

Post by 8note » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

yupper32 wrote: post #71

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to argue for exactly this. The thing is that people would only invest in companies with executives they personally trust. Which may be a good thing overall, but would be a big problem in the short term. I definitely think board members and Top executives should be held criminally liable for the actions of the company. Unless they can prove it was a specific bad actor, and that their policies didn't encourage i…

"Unless they can prove it was a specific bad actor" That's the opposite of the entire basis of the US criminal justice system. Innocent until proven guilty. You need to prove it was them. Not have them prove it was another bad actor.

Youve already been proven guilty by that point

If you can prove somebody else was fully responsible, it goes to them

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#85

Post by Cu3PO42 » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

bdefore wrote: post #66

I owe a debt of gratitude to MoviePass. Their shenanigans led me to learn about virtual credit cards (privacy.com in my case). I'll never be surprise billed by a subscription service again.

Unfortunately, privacy.com is only available in the US. I had been looking for an alternative for quite some time, but recently I stumbled onto the fact that Wise (formerly TrasferWise) will give you a seemingly unlimited amount of virtual cards if you open an account with them.

As far as I can tell this isn't documented on their website, but I can definitely get new cards on demand and disable them as necessary. In fact, their website still mostly references MasterCard, however I have received a physical Visa card and the virtual cards are all Visa as well.

This isn't as sophisticated an offering as privacy.com because you can't set a fixed limit per card, but it's a lot better than nothing.

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#86

Post by jermaustin1 » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

thirtyseven wrote: post #69

jermaustin1 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MoviePass could have survived longer if they had more money, and a different business model. The problem is they were letting you go to movies at AMC and Cinemark for less than they bought the tickets, and both AMC and Cinemark said they wouldn't negotiate lower prices for them. They could have had a small but cult business contracting with smaller theater chains, but they didn't. They could have also bought tickets…

Thanks for the free tickets! Just curious, what was your motivation for investing so heavily if you knew the business model was dumb?

For the bragging rights.

It was already about to be delisted and I think it was sub $1/share. So I looked up how much I'd need to own to match the largest individual investor, and decided.

I could have invested the paltry amount (I actually cannot remember how much, but it was I only held for a couple of days, before selling it at a ~70% loss - or vanguard liquidating when it delisted - I cannot remember now.

But it was a fun ride and brag I got to have. People at the office cheered for me. People in my house berated me.

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#87

Post by arbitrage » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

bdefore wrote: post #66

I owe a debt of gratitude to MoviePass. Their shenanigans led me to learn about virtual credit cards (privacy.com in my case). I'll never be surprise billed by a subscription service again.

you will once a big enough fish captures/compromises privacy.com.

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#88

Post by ascagnel_ » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

cr1895 wrote: post #75

jlarocco wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but any business can survive indefinitely if they're given unlimited funding with no expectation of returns. In your opinion, what's the point of being the main funnel to theaters if you're losing money hand over fist to do so? What was the plan for profitability? Was the goal to somehow strong arm movie theaters into discounted pricing? Why would theaters agree to that when there's no benefit for them to do so…

> The only way their business model can work is if the majority of customers sign up and never use it, which is a very weird thing for a business to depend on, IMO. This is essentially the concept of insurance, is it not?

Insurance works best when it's something that appeals widely (eg: all drivers must carry insurance) but is used rarely (very few drivers will have an accident at any given time). MoviePass was offering a service with narrow appeal (avid moviegoers) that used the service frequently.

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#89

Post by indymike » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

jermaustin1 wrote: post #50

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #24

Unpopular opinion, but MoviePass could have survived a lot longer if they had more funding. I think there could have been a real opportunity with establishing themselves the main funnel to getting consumers to physical theaters. They couldn't hold on long enough to see what could be possible with such a moat.

MoviePass could have survived longer if they had more money, and a different business model. The problem is they were letting you go to movies at AMC and Cinemark for less than they bought the tickets, and both AMC and Cinemark said they wouldn't negotiate lower prices for them. They could have had a small but cult business contracting with smaller theater chains, but they didn't. They could have also bought tickets…

>The problem is they were letting you go to movies at AMC and Cinemark for less than they bought the tickets, and both AMC and Cinemark said they wouldn't negotiate lower prices for them.

Considering the Cinemark near me is a $1.50 per ticket second run place...

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#90

Post by twinkletwinkle_ » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

tolbish wrote: post #21

twinkletwinkle_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crime is a social construct. edit: A poor person who steals is charged. A rich person who steals behind the facade of a company is not. We call the poor person a criminal. It's entirely divorced from an actual moral framework, but simply constructed. I was agreeing with the commenter I replied to.

I don't understand why you are getting downvoted. When people say they support "Law and order" they are not talking about all crime—they are not referring to fraud or market manipulation for example (white collar crime). They are referring to enforcing laws on just a certain subset of society.

I think if I'd instead written "This is what people mean when they say 'Crime is a social construct'" it wouldn't have been downvoted from the outset. "X is a social construct" is heavily associated with a certain viewpoint that HN tends to reject. But I quite like the symbolism of being downvoted "superficially" until I edited to explain in more detail.