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

California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

oag.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 396 posts

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#311

Post by daniel-cussen »

yamtaddle wrote: post #183
spiffytech wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't need to be fraud. A common trick in designing restaurant menus is to make it harder to scan the price list, because people buy the food they prefer when price is one of many considerations rather than prominently highlighted. > Centred Justification > When prices are printed in neat, right-justified columns, everyone glances down the line to compare prices. Menu consultants recommend a centred justificatio…

What's weird, at least in the US, is that the higher-end the joint, the easier it is to shop by price, generally. Tax-inclusive, whole-dollar-value (no "$7.99" crap, it's just "8"), all-prices-aligned menus are more common as one heads up-scale.

[dead]

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#312

Post by zxcvbn4038 »

robertlagrant wrote: post #285
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never seen the impressing part... usually if you want to eat cheap, you go somewhere cheap, if you want something more expensive, you're prepared to pay more, but you don't want to be surprised after. So, noone who goes to a place like this cares if one soup is $12 and the other $14 and then pick the cheaper one... but if you have a $79 bottle of wine on the menu and a $7900 bottle of wine on the menu, it's in the in…

"Sir, the wine is clearly marked as 0.0000000472c per cubic mile. How did you not see this coming?"

That happened to me in Italy. I knew I was in trouble when the chef came out to shake my hand. I did not realize the steak was priced per ounce, was the biggest steak I’d even seen, ended up costing me ~$400.

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#313

Post by brigade »

acdha wrote: post #236
yamtaddle wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who've already wasted time getting to the point where they can see the fees, and are confident that all your competitors do the same thing anyway, aren't likely to bail over them. That's probably the most accurate way to state the "preference".

Exactly: there’s a ton of psychology research around that effect and businesses use these techniques because they work. I applaud California for trying to make this illegal since something reliably profitable is not going to stop otherwise.

Incidentally, California mostly [1] already bans hidden fees for cars, and IMO the car-buying experience in California is better for it compared to other states.

[1] the current workaround is dealers listing the MSRP on their websites and arguing that that isn't an advertised sale price... but at least that only works for new cars.

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#314

Post by WirelessGigabit »

aninteger wrote: post #309
grahar64 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The night after my first haircut in the US I was like “oh shit” and I googled “do you tip for a haircut” and realized I fucked up. The results were anywhere from 10%-50% tip. The next haircut I got I asked “what is a good tip” and the hair cutter would not tell me. I guessed 20% and went about my day. Then someone told me “that was too low”. I ended up cutting my own hair, or waiting until I was in another sane count…

20% is fine for a haircut. It's perfectly acceptable.

No it's not. Hair stylists should set there prices accordingly in a way that they make a livable wage.

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#315

Post by ncallaway »

spfzero wrote: post #304
ncallaway wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think fraud is a good analogy - the whole point with fraud is that you are getting something different after you agreed to it, when it's too late to back out. Nah, it’s fraud. It’s a minor, lightweight fraud, but it’s still fraud. These companies are just lying to customers to get what they want, that’s fraud. There’s a veneer of legality to it, because they tell you the price before the “contract” is legal…

>>The entire point is to make the customer do enough work before you show them the actual price, that they just give up and deal with it. I think a big part of the point is to compete on search (aggregate search like travel sites especially) with the company's competitors. The first company to start, say, charging for a carry-on realizes that they are forcing everyone to copy that, but for a while they'll have an adv…

Yep, I understand why people commit this fraud.

And, again, as far as fraud goes I think this is on the fairly low end of frauds.

But, “hey, lots of other people are committing this fraud” goes into the bucket of “helps the person committing fraud sleep at night”.

I do tend to hold the platforms themselves (AirBnB, VRBO) more responsible than the individual hosts that list on these platforms.

It just shouldn’t be possible to even present listings with hidden fees on the platforms. So, in general I look at this as 90% AirBNBs fault, and 10% the individual hosts fault.

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#316

Post by cld8483 »

bradleyjg wrote: post #143
mattficke wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airlines are an interesting an example because the FAA required them to advertise all-inclusive pricing a decade ago. The extras they charge for now (checked bags, bigger seats, nonstop flights) really are optional —- I routinely pack light and pass on any upgrades. People who need to check a bag can include that in their price comparison. For hotels, it’s fine to charge extra for access to the pool or whatever as lo…

One interesting wrinkle is sitting next to another person on your ticket. By all rights it should be optional but person after person books the no assigned seat option and then is outraged that they are not seated next to their companions.

I've flown with South West for years where all tickets are "no assigned seat", and I've yet to see a single person who's 'outraged' by the result. I've not even overheard grumbled complaints. This doesn't seem like a real problem to me.

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#317

Post by Vespasian »

grahar64 wrote: post #273
dangwhy wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> tipping This has gotten ridiculous past 2-3 year. Buy a $3.00 coffee , $1 tip is expected. I hate those ipad type payment consoles.

The night after my first haircut in the US I was like “oh shit” and I googled “do you tip for a haircut” and realized I fucked up. The results were anywhere from 10%-50% tip. The next haircut I got I asked “what is a good tip” and the hair cutter would not tell me. I guessed 20% and went about my day. Then someone told me “that was too low”. I ended up cutting my own hair, or waiting until I was in another sane count…

Hmmm I guess a lot changed since my last vacation to the US 10 years ago.

I remember all the travel advisories said something about 10 to 15 percent.

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#318

Post by saurik »

ncallaway wrote: post #294
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a very odd definition of "fraud" in my opinion. But I'll just leave it at that, because this feels like the perfect example of the oft-quoted "99% of all Internet arguments are over semantics" line.

Sure, I’ll agree that my definition doesn’t line up 100% with the legal definition. My definition of fraud is: “lying to someone to induce them to do something they wouldn’t have done without the lie”. I think the hidden pricing lines up neatly with my definition. What’s your definition? (We don’t need to come to an agreement, just curious how you think about it)

FWIW, I don't even really feel like the "legal definition" is relevant: a lot of people on Hacker News seem to think the only thing that matters is the law, and then attempt to move every conversation into whether the law says one thing or the other, and yet fraud is a concept that no one has ever questioned exists even when the law isn't in question or involved. The definition from Oxford Languages (the one Google pulls from) has an "or criminal", but that's clearly elidable, so "wrongful deception intended to result in financial or personal gain" is what we are left with, and the question is then just whether or not it is "wrongful"... and frankly, you're going to end up there also, because I'm pretty sure the person you are arguing with is going to say "this isn't lying". I guess what I mean to say is: you are actually trying to have an ethical argument, but are being drawn into a silly semantic argument over the definition and source of a word you used not really because the definition matters but because it has a bad connotation and since they disagree that this is unethical behavior they want a happy word there, when the real problem is the ethical disagreement.

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#319

Post by zeroonetwothree »

ncallaway wrote: post #294
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a very odd definition of "fraud" in my opinion. But I'll just leave it at that, because this feels like the perfect example of the oft-quoted "99% of all Internet arguments are over semantics" line.

Sure, I’ll agree that my definition doesn’t line up 100% with the legal definition. My definition of fraud is: “lying to someone to induce them to do something they wouldn’t have done without the lie”. I think the hidden pricing lines up neatly with my definition. What’s your definition? (We don’t need to come to an agreement, just curious how you think about it)

That is the normal definition of fraud. It seems the difference is you think hidden fees are lying, whereas most people don’t think so as long as they are presented before final purchase agreement.

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#320

Post by acdha »

wpietri wrote: post #139
antihero wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These people are making money hand over fist, cleaning should be on the hosts, it is their duty to provide clean accommodation.

I don't even understand this. I show up at a clean place. After I leave, somebody needs to clean up after me to make it good for the next person. No matter who does the cleaning, the hosts or somebody they hire, this takes supplies and labor. The only person putting money in is me, so the cleaning obviously has to be on my dime. I just want the pricing to be transparent in the details and included in the headline num…

I read it as the person making the money being responsible for cleaning, which makes sense — it’s quite literally their job and they’re way more familiar with the local market for cleaning services.
Post reply on HN