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

131–140 of 175 posts

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

#131

Post by listenallyall »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #126
listenallyall wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is buying millions of tickets "antagonizing"? And what intelligent company turns down a 5-million ticket order - at full price! - from a single customer in favor of selling 3 million tickets one-by-one?

I was referring to the statements they made intentionally taunting AMC. That's not how you get people to come to the negotiating table. AMC absolutely did the right thing: they kept their mouth shut, collected the money, waited for MoviePass to fizzle out, then launched their own (presumably profitable) subscription service.

...and watched its stock decline from mid-20s when MP launched to under $5 if I remember correctly. Later it became a WSB meme stock, but that is a different story.

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

#132

Post by jfengel »

twinkletwinkle_ wrote: post #90
tolbish wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I avoid progressive jargon when talking on HN. It's actually kind of a useful exercise to be able to address the concepts directly but concisely without the vocabulary.

It does mean I lose access to a lot of the background support. Jargon, in every field, brings in a whole wealth of connected concepts and helps you communicate precisely. But some words get "skunked" (overloaded with confusing, contradictory, or pejorative meanings), and I avoid them when I think I won't be understood.

I don't fool myself into thinking I'm actually persuading anybody. The best I can hope for is a vague notion that somebody might remember that they read something once. And that works best if I'm not automatically downvoted -- which I know I will be if some people reject it out of hand.

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

#133

Post by kingaillas »

cs702 wrote: post #15

It appears the MoviePass master plan for world domination was inspired by the underpants gnomes of South Park[a]: Step 1. Charge customers $10/month for unlimited passes to movie theaters Step 2. Change passwords to prevent customers from getting their passes Step 3. ??? -- [a] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts

Matt Levine's summary in his current newsletter is this:

"So at some point the company looked for ways to make this insane business model work, and it found one. It’s pretty simple: What if MoviePass collected your $10 each month and then, when you asked it for movie tickets, it ignored you? Then it could keep collecting your $10 a month without spending money on tickets. Eventually you’d get annoyed by not getting what you paid for, and you’d try to cancel your membership and get your money back, but MoviePass could ignore that too and keep collecting the $10. Giving people unlimited movie tickets for $10 a month is a good way to get rapid customer growth; telling people you’ll give them unlimited movie tickets for $10 a month, but not actually doing it, is a way to pivot to profitability."

And the way they ignored you was even worse - changing the passwords on their highest volume users.

Anyway, it's a great read. Subscribe, it is a fantastic free newsletter. Past awesome coverage included the RobinHood stock hijinks. (Bloomberg's Money Stuff newsletter, sub here: https://www.bloomberg.com/account/newsletters/money-stuff)

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

#134

Post by [deleted] »

jedberg wrote: post #125
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 basically how gyms are profitable.

[deleted]

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

#135

Post by Telemakhos »

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 was started by a group of conmen who ran scams in India.

https://www.businessinsider.com/moviepass-owner-emerged-from...

The company was a classic pump-and-dump; it was never supposed to last this long. Somewhere along the line some other, US-based conmen ("serial entrepreneurs") got involved, probably holding the bag for the founders who got their stock profits and bailed.

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

#136

Post by SilasX »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #102
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 would also trot out ENRON as another example, on a much larger scale. The only person in the entire fiasco that actually did serious jail time was Jeffrey Skilling who was sentenced to 14 years and was released in 2019.

Well, CEO Ken Lay might have done serious jail time as well, but he died before sentencing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay#Enron_bankruptcy_a...

Edit: Given the really suspicious timing, and how the death vacated the conviction, "died".

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

#137

Post by mshroyer »

phkahler wrote: post #52
judge2020 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep - i'd be surprised if even a tenth of all white-collar crime is known about.

I thought white-collar crime was usually a person scamming a company. This is a company scamming their customers, which I think happens far more than 10x what we hear about. Way back in the 90's I had a bank account that paid something like 5 percent interest, but only had a couple thousand dollars in it (maybe). I was between jobs and made no deposits for over a month - only withdrawals and only like 4 of them. I go…

> I thought white-collar crime was usually a person scamming a company.

That's not my understanding of the term "white-collar crime", nor is it the definition used here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-collar_crime

The interest calculation problem you describe would fall under what I think is the usual definition of "white-collar crime".

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

#138

Post by ardit33 »

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…

Thanks Obama for this. He went full on corporate... and of course Trump and Biden are the same. In both Clinton and Bush eras (both Bushes), there was more pushback on some of these behaviors.

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

#139

Post by sidlls »

Chris2048 wrote: post #46
tolbish wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They are referring to enforcing laws on just a certain subset of society. Or enforcing a certain subset of laws on all society. And it's not just the "bigbiz-friendly" reds, it's also the blues with their "lets not punish non-violent crime". The fact is laws in the US (and elsewhere) are written, but unevenly enforced, as such what remains is quibbling over priority. I want to see more punishments for white collar…

Less leniency? "Blue-collar crime" in the US carries some of the most draconian penalties of any developed nation.

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

#140

Post by sixothree »

anonymousab wrote: post #117
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Make it actual jail time, and for the company itself. No monetary flow, no work being done, no contracts honored, restricted and slow (if any) access to assets, etc. Would it be traumatic? For sure. Potentially "life-ruining" for the company and the people close to it? Sure. Just like jail and prison are for regular people.

Charge them $15 for a 10 minute phone call while we're at it.
Post reply on HN