Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 175 posts

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

#91

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

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…

AMC and Cinemark would have negotiated if the moat was properly fortified is my thesis. They didn't have enough runway to determine the feasibility.

Anyone could've looked at MoviePass' public filings and determined they would be no problem to AMC.

What if Uber and Lyft didn't subsidize ridesharing for years? Yellow cab service would still be the market leader today.

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

#92

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

leesalminen wrote: post #43
Chris2048 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So if I were to own 1 share of $AMZN, I’d be criminally liable for anything the corporation does? Would I do 10 minutes in jail or something?

That actually seems like a great idea. Not 10 minutes of jail time, but some form of liability. If orgs are incentivized to increase shareholder value, and those shareholders face no liability for wrongdoing done to increase their assets worth, then the incentives are out of whack. I don't know what kinds of liability makes sense, but some form seems like a great idea.

If you own one share of amazon, and it gets some penalty, then you face 0.00000002% of that penalty in some way.

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

#93

Post by warkdarrior »

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?

Kind of, but the insurance business depends on the costly events being rare and mostly independent of the customers' choices (e.g., getting sick is the event for health insurance, getting into a car accident for auto insurance).

MoviePass is the opposite. It sells/sold a product that is frequent enough and dependent on customers' choices. The MoviePass product is pitched as way to go to the movies whenever and as often as you want, thus maximizing the frequency of costly events (i.e., paying for theater tickets).

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

#95

Post by DrBenCarson »

I thought I was just terrible with using my password manager….

This happened to me at least a couple times back in 2016 when I was seeing 2+ movies with MoviePass. I would get to the movie theater and all of a sudden be locked out. I would need to reset my password standing on the curb waiting to get a damn email over 500kbps LTE.

Good to know it wasn’t my fault and that the public in general is now aware of this behavior.

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

#96

Post by ocdtrekkie »

Kinrany wrote: post #47
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…

I wonder if a general purpose legal framework of applying the same punishment to different types of entities is possible. That way most laws could be worded in a way that applies to private individuals and all types of companies the same way, but then the actual punishment would be applied differently. Specifically, when a company breaks the law, the legal framework would explain the way the responsibility should be…

I am frustrated that we continue to have the death penalty for individuals that commit heinous crimes, but we do not have the death penalty for corporations.

I feel like when you manage to harm a billion people at a time, the penalty should be that your company is dissolved, it's assets auctioned off, and the trademarks and domains blackholed.

And then, since I don't support the death penalty for individuals, the C-levels investigated for their knowing involvement in any related schemes, and if proven aware, given prison time and forbidden from ever operating in a management capacity at any corporation ever again.

The problem with corporations is that there is no meaningful disincentive to commit crimes. You succeed, you get rich. You fail, you take your severance, live like a king for a year, and then get hired to do the same at another company. If executive pay is going to come with outsized pay, it should come with outsize risk: Jail executives for their choices when running corporations. For the millions they make, they'll still be lining up for the job.

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

#97

Post by legitster »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #70
legitster wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this necessarily precludes formal criminal charges. Even the dissenting opinion was like "this is clearly a crime, but outside of the FTC's authority".

It is a prediction based on how many times I see SEC/FTC/FCC/FAA/other government agency report on misdeeds, but it never results in any criminal charges against any person. The responsible parties are never even named, effectively making it so all these investigations and reports do not result in the slightest bit of deterrent. Another even better example was linked in another comment in this thread: https://www.sec…

This is more of a failure on the justice department. Federal regulators are not prosecutors and it's probably for the best that they don't have the authority to lock people up. But it certainly feels like we don't have enough criminal law on the books for executive malfeasance.

This case may be a bit different though - they apparently left a pretty big paper trail:

> When Lowe and Farnsworth presented the disruption program to other executives of Respondent MoviePass, one executive warned that the password disruption program “would be targeting all of our heavy users” and that “there is a high risk this would catch the FTC’s attention (and State AG’s attention) and could reinvigorate their questioning of MoviePass, this time from a Consumer Protection standpoint.” (Emphasis in original).

> Another executive agreed, warning of “FTC Fears: All [the other MoviePass executive’s] notes about FTC and PR [public relations] fire are my main concerns as I think the PR backlash will flame the FTC stuff.” (Emphasis in original).

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

#98

Post by balefrost »

reidjs wrote: post #78
justapassenger wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MoviePass was as much as much of a tech company as WeWork. Having a website doesn’t make you a tech company.

I sort of like the peopleware description of technology "anything that didn't exist when you were a kid is technology" In that sense movie theater subscriptions counts as technology. Is moviepass still dumb? Yes.

I guess that also means that Gritty is technology. I like to think that Gritty would approve of that.

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

#99

Post by ozym4nd145 »

Cu3PO42 wrote: post #85
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…

I believe Wise has a limit of upto 3 virtual cards. Are you able create more? source: https://www.kasareviews.com/wise-debit-card-review-pros-cons

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

#100

Post by jermaustin1 »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #91
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…

AMC and Cinemark would have negotiated if the moat was properly fortified is my thesis. They didn't have enough runway to determine the feasibility. Anyone could've looked at MoviePass' public filings and determined they would be no problem to AMC. What if Uber and Lyft didn't subsidize ridesharing for years? Yellow cab service would still be the market leader today.

> What if Uber and Lyft didn't subsidize ridesharing for years?

That is different. Uber and Lyft were paying drivers to drive.

MoviePass was giving people basically free tickets, but paying FULL FARE at AMC and Cinemark.

AMC and Cinemark have no reason to negotiate because what would happen if MoviePass stopped giving away tickets to AMC and Cinemark? Users would leave MoviePass and continue going to AMC and Cinemark at full price.

Post reply on HN