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

81–90 of 134 posts

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

#81

Post by kulahan »

autobodie wrote: post #61
jfengel wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulations like this are written in consultation with the industries being regulated. There is a ton of wrangling and nailing down details. It's usually hundreds of pages long and specific to the industry. So they can't just write a single thing that rights all wrongs. And their staffing is extremely limited.

>they can't just write a single thing that writes all wrongs. Found the attorney! Nobody asked for "a single thing that writes all wrongs." Simple, broad laws can absolutely be written, they are especially easy to write, and they are usually the best laws for decent average citizens, but decent average citizens are not who laws are written for in the United States. Most people already know this.

Isn’t it kind of helpful to have an attorney’s opinion on law?

Anyways, it’s very easy to complain there isn’t a law which eliminates whatever fees you think are ridiculous across a large swathe of industries. What specific implementation would you suggest, though? I’ve not heard of these apparently simple approaches.

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

#82

Post by kulahan »

xnx wrote: post #59
ronbenton wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airbnb is really bad about this. Advertising lodging for $100 and then suddenly when you go to book there's an additional $100/night of fees.

Hotels can be even worse. They will add a "resort fee" when you show up. You can refuse to pay, and then have nowhere to stay.

I was on a business trip once and remember seeing something in the fine print of the rental agreement that they wouldn’t auto-charge me for my (unused) safe if I requested it at the front desk. It was like $5, and I only bothered because it wasn’t my money.

Bet most people never even see that though

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

#83

Post by timewizard »

bayarearefugee wrote: post #38
timewizard wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

lol. Lina Khan was appointed to the FTC by Joe Biden as part of a broader decision to allow Elizabeth Warren expanded oversight of economic regulation as a way to coalition build with the somewhat more progressive (but still pretty establishment) parts of the Democratic party. Lina Khan was Biden's pick because she was Warren's pick. To be clear about my own biases, I think Lina Khan was a fantastic pick and did an a…

> beyond, say, JD Vance throwing out some rhetoric on the campaign trail

JD Vance. Matt Gaetz. Josh Hawley. Ken Buck. They literally started calling them Khanservatives. There is strong anti-trust sentiment in parts of the Republican party. Just like there are "somewhat more progressive parts of the Democratic party."

> is revisionist history.

Or the story is more subtle and nuanced than people care to admit.

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

#85

Post by timewizard »

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #27
timewizard wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 100% of the votes against confirmation were Republican

And so no Democrat voted against her? Does a party line split ever look good regardless of how it breaks?

> Fewer than half the R Senators voted to confirm her.

Anti-trust issues have become more popular lately. Senators come and go. Like I said she had a rocky start.

> Obama nominee Edith Ramirez, was confirmed unanimously

And she did nothing. Do you see the connection between those two facts? I mean it's not like there was a bunch of consumer problems during Obama's term or anything. :|

> let the different parties take responsibility and/or credit for their decisions.

Party politics are just exceptionally dumb. They don't even reasonably reflect how decisions are actually made on the hill. It devolves into a weird left vs. right fight between citizens while the actual meaningful policies and civil servants are entirely ignored. I don't sense a way to improve anything by doing this.

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

#86

Post by _blk »

Swizec wrote: post #79
thomquaid wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The StubHub example is the abuse that is being banned. Yes, you can bait and switch people and take more of their money than they are otherwise willing to spend if you deceive, manipulate, and withold disclosures. It is (arguably) wrong/bad, but profitable.

Exactly. When consumers don’t vote in their own best interest with their wallets, legislation is the only option. Let’s do airlines next

Except that legislation is also not in their favor because companies will just find new ways to make money [as they should - I just wish they were more creative in providing value rather than just the "added fee shortcut"] In the end it's on consumers: People should just reward better service instead of picking the seemingly cheapest option and then cry that the world is unfair and someone has to fix it for them..

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

#87

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

kulahan wrote: post #81
autobodie wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they can't just write a single thing that writes all wrongs. Found the attorney! Nobody asked for "a single thing that writes all wrongs." Simple, broad laws can absolutely be written, they are especially easy to write, and they are usually the best laws for decent average citizens, but decent average citizens are not who laws are written for in the United States. Most people already know this.

Isn’t it kind of helpful to have an attorney’s opinion on law? Anyways, it’s very easy to complain there isn’t a law which eliminates whatever fees you think are ridiculous across a large swathe of industries. What specific implementation would you suggest, though? I’ve not heard of these apparently simple approaches.

> What specific implementation would you suggest, though? I’ve not heard of these apparently simple approaches.

Good question! Thank you for asking, I will do my best to help provide the answer:

One common implementation is to require that all marketing show the final price most prominently, which seems reasonable to me.

"But wait," some may interject, "That final price may vary depending on jurisdiction!"

Yes, that is true, and entirely possible to deal with, and requiring advertisers to account for that is a better solution than requiring all customers to deal with the alternative. Besides, nobody is forcing the company to vary the price. They can just charge a flat price that accounts for the average of all local fees, and/or eat the fees, which was the intent of the legislation in the first place.

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

#88

Post by Swizec »

_blk wrote: post #86
Swizec wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. When consumers don’t vote in their own best interest with their wallets, legislation is the only option. Let’s do airlines next

Except that legislation is also not in their favor because companies will just find new ways to make money [as they should - I just wish they were more creative in providing value rather than just the "added fee shortcut"] In the end it's on consumers: People should just reward better service instead of picking the seemingly cheapest option and then cry that the world is unfair and someone has to fix it for them..

> People should just reward better service instead of picking the seemingly cheapest option

This is easy for us hackernews types with disposable income to say and very hard for the average person to implement. 57% of Americans can’t afford an unexpected $500 expense [1]

Always keep in mind the boots theory of economic unfairness:

> A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-cant-afford-a-50...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory

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

#89

Post by dboreham »

GuB-42 wrote: post #47
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, inc…

Corruption makes it magically less of a problem.

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

#90

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

projektfu wrote: post #57
simpaticoder wrote: post #4

[flagged]

While I can't guess your exact implication, this Biden-era regulatory move (just now being finalized) was reiterated in an executive order by Trump, and the process wasn't stopped, so it seems pretty safe to assume that the regulation will stay. Whether the FTC enforces it is, I guess, up to whoever is running it at whatever time.

In-place regulations present an opportunity to trade nonenforcement for financial compensation. A nonexistent regulation does not.
Post reply on HN