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

101–110 of 134 posts

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

#101

Post by lozenge »

jfengel wrote: post #54
breadwinner wrote: post #50

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…

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.

I live in the UK and the policy on fees is effective and runs about a hundred pages. What you are describing is regulatory capture.

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

#102

Post by watwut »

timewizard wrote: post #85
sorcerer-mar wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

The most damaging partisan politics is the one where we insist on making Republicans look better then they are, again and again.

That is how they became the party fully in support of Trumps policies.

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

#103

Post by Timon3 »

_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..

> 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..

They probably should, but people just don't work this way. We aren't machines that strictly go by the best economical output. Unless you find a way to make people do that (and I don't think this exists, since we'll always be partially driven by emotions) we have two options:

a) let people be exploited by companies

b) legislate against exploitation by companies

I for sure think the latter is the better option, especially since it forces companies to compete on value instead of just extraction.

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

#104

Post by mschuster91 »

kbos87 wrote: post #22
hokumguru wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know what gooner even means lol.

[flagged]

Exactly. And they've been reported to be backed by burly, heavily armed sort-of officers when they showed up uninvited at government agencies, demanding to be let in, hence the wordplay.

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

#105

Post by joshvm »

gruez wrote: post #7
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…

Movie theaters/studios lobbied harder

They also have far more price sensitive customers and they're competing against streaming platforms. It's not like the cost of movies and TV has gone down. But, nobody is going to pay 50 bucks for a seat unless it's a spectacular movie at the best IMAX in the country. I think a seat for Interstellar cost close to that when it came out. The average blockbuster in an average small theater? Physical theaters are already on their last legs. They've banked on lower seat count to put in larger couches/recliners, started to offer alcohol and they still make margin on the food. They're also re-running classic movies for not much more than a rental - The Matrix again? All of Studio Ghibli? Yes please. In many ways it's a great time to go to see movies in the theater. The experience has markedly improved and the cost to consumers hasn't risen that much in absolute terms.

The Regal near me charges about $15 for a normal evening seat, less for a matinee. I'm sure I've paid more in Ticketmaster fees for a single performance.

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

#106

Post by londons_explore »

jfengel wrote: post #54
breadwinner wrote: post #50

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…

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.

The UK requires that all advertised prices include all extras and charges a typical customer will pay.

Ie. If you charge £100 for a hotel room, but have a £5 fee for using the lights, you have to advertise it as £105 because nearly every customer will be needing the lights.

Super simple rule. Works really well.

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

#107

Post by noname120 »

breadwinner wrote: post #50

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…

In politics you always need to do a first small step, and then expand on it. Attempting to pass a big paradigm shift in one-go is a receipt for failure.

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

#108

Post by noname120 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #77
xnx wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hotels don’t charge a cleaning fee, then fine you for not ckeaning.

Omg is that really a thing? I've never witnessed it

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

#109

Post by A_Duck »

breadwinner wrote: post #50

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…

On 6 April, the UK banned all drip pricing, so it is possible

"All mandatory fees, such as admin fees or ticket booking fees, must now be included in the headline price"

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fake-reviews-and-sneaky-h...

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

#110

Post by mschuster91 »

brewdad wrote: post #64
ezfe wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are those fees not included in the advertised price? The issue is not fees themselves but fees that are added on at the checkout screen.

Typically the will be advertised as BIG MONTHLY PRICE $50/mo Then an asterisk and tiny, tiny print somewhere below stating "plus taxes and fees" So it depends on how you define "fees not included in the advertised price" but the last time I had a postpaid plan, I couldn't even know how much those added taxes and fees were until my first bill arrived.

The fees can be calculated in advance. Taxes, I'll admit that given the inanity of how the US does sales taxes, I'm fine with leaving these out of advertising, but at the time where you filled out the forms and make the final confirmation, the taxes should be shown.
Post reply on HN