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

FTC rule on unfair or deceptive fees to take effect on May 12

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 134 posts

Re: FTC rule on unfair or deceptive fees to take effect on May 12

#21

Post by betterThanTexas »

da_chicken wrote: post #15
diggan wrote: post #5

> Live-event tickets include those for concerts, sporting events, music, theater, and other live performances that audiences watch as they occur, but not pre-recorded audio or visual performances. What could be the reason pre-recorded audio/visual performances are excluded? Shouldn't this just be for everything? Why would some types of tickets be required to be truthful about fees and not allowed to lie about the tot…

I would suggest that a pre-recorded performance is inherently more fungible. If movie theater A is going to charge you a $20 fee when you get to the theater, you can just go to theater B later and see the same show. If you're trying to see the single Chicago date of Tropical Fu Dogs' Coconut Cream tour, well, you either pay the fee or you don't ever see that show.

Ok, so why is the government endorsing hidden fees for fungible products? There is no situation where this benefits anyone but shareholders.

Re: FTC rule on unfair or deceptive fees to take effect on May 12

#24

Post by kelnos »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #14

I'm assuming that "short-term rental" means your standard "night or two" hotel rooms (not just extended say). It sounds like it, from the report. I remember staying in hotels in Japan, and they would say 1,600 Yen per night, and ... I get the bill for two nights, and it's 3,200 Yen. Not so, US hotels.

"Short-term rental" is usually something you'd find on Airbnb or VRBO, not a hotel like a Marriott or Hyatt property, which are classified as "hotels".

Re: FTC rule on unfair or deceptive fees to take effect on May 12

#25

Post by rtpg »

betterThanTexas wrote: post #21
da_chicken wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suggest that a pre-recorded performance is inherently more fungible. If movie theater A is going to charge you a $20 fee when you get to the theater, you can just go to theater B later and see the same show. If you're trying to see the single Chicago date of Tropical Fu Dogs' Coconut Cream tour, well, you either pay the fee or you don't ever see that show.

Ok, so why is the government endorsing hidden fees for fungible products? There is no situation where this benefits anyone but shareholders.

The best faith thing I can think of here is that these rules are requiring that live events do much more than "just" display the full price. For example in ads they _must_ show the all inclusive price.

An example of a thing that movie theaters can do that live event shows can no longer do is say "a ticket costs $14", while in reality there's a booking fee to cover card payments if you pay online, but you can walk into a movie theater and pay just $14.

I think the FTC is saying that while there might be good faith reasons to have booking fees, the industry clearly is using this stuff in bad faith so the industry no longer has this sort of good faith "out" to simplify messaging on pricing.

Re: FTC rule on unfair or deceptive fees to take effect on May 12

#27

Post by sorcerer-mar »

timewizard wrote: post #11
9283409232 wrote: post #8

Okay so I'm not crazy because I swore this was a Biden era policy.

The FTC is an independent regulatory agency. The president has almost no powers and little oversight when it comes to these agencies. More appropriately this is a Lina Khan era policy. She had a rocky start but her focus and conviction was unparalleled by any previous iteration of the agency. So much so that she enjoyed more bipartisan congressional support and approval than most staffers in recent memory.

From Wikipedia: Nominated in March 2021; Served in office June 15, 2021 – January 20, 2025

Coincidental timing, I'm sure!

100% of the votes against confirmation were Republican. Fewer than half the R Senators voted to confirm her. Her predecessor, Obama nominee Edith Ramirez, was confirmed unanimously.

I suggest we let the different parties take responsibility and/or credit for their decisions.

Re: FTC rule on unfair or deceptive fees to take effect on May 12

#28

Post by yellowapple »

da_chicken wrote: post #15
diggan wrote: post #5

> Live-event tickets include those for concerts, sporting events, music, theater, and other live performances that audiences watch as they occur, but not pre-recorded audio or visual performances. What could be the reason pre-recorded audio/visual performances are excluded? Shouldn't this just be for everything? Why would some types of tickets be required to be truthful about fees and not allowed to lie about the tot…

I would suggest that a pre-recorded performance is inherently more fungible. If movie theater A is going to charge you a $20 fee when you get to the theater, you can just go to theater B later and see the same show. If you're trying to see the single Chicago date of Tropical Fu Dogs' Coconut Cream tour, well, you either pay the fee or you don't ever see that show.

This works until Theater A signs an exclusivity deal with the publisher of that pre-recorded performance, such that going to Theater B to see the same show is not possible because Theater B is not legally permitted to show it.

Granted, such exclusivity deals are rare (because generally publishers want to maximize their revenue rather than artificially constrain it), but not unheard of (for example: films made specifically for IMAX's fancy setups).

Re: FTC rule on unfair or deceptive fees to take effect on May 12

#29

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

kelnos wrote: post #24
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #14

I'm assuming that "short-term rental" means your standard "night or two" hotel rooms (not just extended say). It sounds like it, from the report. I remember staying in hotels in Japan, and they would say 1,600 Yen per night, and ... I get the bill for two nights, and it's 3,200 Yen. Not so, US hotels.

"Short-term rental" is usually something you'd find on Airbnb or VRBO, not a hotel like a Marriott or Hyatt property, which are classified as "hotels".

They mention "hotels," in the report, but don't get specific as to services offered.
Post reply on HN