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

41–50 of 134 posts

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

#41

Post by gruez »

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.

>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.

Isn't that an argument for stronger disclosure laws for pre-recorded performances? If there's a monopoly, deceptive pricing wouldn't do much because the monopolist is still your only choice. but if it's a competitive marketplace, deceptive pricing might actually lead to consumers choosing worse providers.

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

#42

Post by gruez »

explodes wrote: post #10
gruez wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Movie theaters/studios lobbied harder

"The Commission notes that the harms of bait-and-switch pricing and the misrepresentation of fees and charges are particularly pronounced in industries such as these, in which most transactions occur online. Consumers trying to comparison shop across multiple websites, or even on the same website, when deciding what tickets to purchase or where to travel are unable to do so effectively because some businesses hide th…

Since when do consumers "comparison shop across multiple websites" for concert tickets? For the official release there's usually only one vendor.

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

#43

Post by toast0 »

yellowapple wrote: post #28
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.

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 specifi…

> Granted, such exclusivity deals are rare (because generally publishers want to maximize their revenue rather than artificially constrain it),

Well, also there was US v. Paramount Pictures [1], which prohibited film production companies from showing their films exclusively at their owned theaters. And follow-on rulings like Bigelow vs RKO Radio Pictures [2], that more or less established that distributing films preferentially is also unacceptable.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_v._RKO_Radio_Pictures,....

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

#45

Post by dang »

9283409232 wrote: post #8

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

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43910815 - not a criticism! It's just that we pinned the related-thread comment to the top and I want to save real estate up there.

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

#47

Post by GuB-42 »

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 think that it is simply because the situation is less problematic than with live events.

In free countries, and especially the US when it comes to trade, the idea is that people can do whatever they want unless it causes a problem, and if it causes a problem, they will pass the minimum amount of regulation needed to address the problem.

My opinion as a consumer would be to ban all hidden fees in all industries, including taxes and tipping when it is expected. But lawmakers in the US consider it not enough of a problem to restrict the freedoms of businesses doing this, so they take a more targeted approach.

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

#48

Post by jahsome »

deadbabe wrote: post #40
vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #31

[flagged]

I don’t understand why. Lately it feels like everything is “People like this? HA, take it away…” Wouldn’t this open them up to someone campaigning with all these little things and becoming really popular?

I have a personal conspiracy theory it's specifically because these things anger people. Once everyone is riled up, the less scrupulous among those seeking power can claim without any challenge whatsoever from the media they are the only people capable of making things better. And a good chunk of the electorate seems to buy it, wholesale.

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

#49

Post by Retric »

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.

Yea, hotels are covered.

Examples of covered short-term lodging include: Temporary sleeping accommodations at a hotel, motel, inn, short-term rental, vacation rental, or other place of lodging; Home shares and vacation rentals offered through platforms (like Airbnb or VRBO); Discounted extended stays at a hotel.

Examples of lodging that are not covered include: Long-term or other rental housing that involves an ongoing landlord-tenant relationship; Short-term extensions to leases offered by rental housing providers; Temporary corporate housing offered by an apartment community under the same conditions as long-term leases.

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

#50

Post by breadwinner »

Why limit this to live-event and lodging industries? Why not all the fees tacked on by cell carriers?

For example, AT&T charges a fee to "recover certain aggregate expenses AT&T incurs, including, but not limited to, charges AT&T or its agents pay to interconnect with other carriers to deliver calls from AT&T customers to their customers and charges associated with cell site rents and maintenance" [1]

[1] https://www.att.com/legal/terms.otherWirelessFeeSchedule.htm...

Post reply on HN