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

111–120 of 134 posts

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

#111

Post by sorcerer-mar »

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…

I didn't make it a left vs right thing. The people who nominate, confirm, and force out FTC chairs did.

It just so happens that all the people who pushed against this particular FTC chair are on one side of the aisle. That wasn't up to me!

> I don't sense a way to improve anything by doing this.

In my experience, step 1 of solving a problem is a sober assessment of the facts. We elect people and they make decisions. I'm pointing out what decisions they made.

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

#112

Post by gosub100 »

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

Isn't it proof that legislation doesn't work? That people can't get simple, common sense laws passed? The past 15-20 years we've had plenty of time to do so, while the fees and surcharges have grown. That timeframe is enough to control for political parties and include a mix of all voter ages and incomes.

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

#113

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

noname120 wrote: post #108
Spooky23 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

It's probably not industry-wide, but I could see some places doing that.

They really let lodging providers get away with murder.

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

#114

Post by AStonesThrow »

Beginning when I was only 14 in 1986, I used to attend a lot of concerts. A lot of them. And they were not particularly popular concerts, though most were in larger venues such as sports arenas and amphitheaters. So I was usually able to score decent tickets without too much cutthroat camping-in-line or anything. Even in those days, most all of the tickets were sold through TicketMaster. Our main outlet was on the second floor of a Montgomery Ward store in the mall, right there among all the clothing in the department store, for no obvious reason.

Now in those days there were a couple of fees tacked on to ticket prices, but of course they were typically opaque already because even the base would depend on where we wanted to sit in the venue. So we didn't squirm too much when there were "facility fees" and "convenience fees" added and so forth. If possible, I would directly approach the venue's box office for the best deal, though.

It was interesting, because as the years wore on, I became interested in more obscure music, and that translated to ever-smaller venues, and more informal ticket purchases.

By 1999 I had acquired my "dream job" of clerk at Tower Records, and I was able to get up-close and personal with a real TicketMaster terminal (which was accessed in exactly the same way, with arcane text commands) and by that time my concert-being activities were being strictly curtailed. But I understood how terrible the market had become, the layers of fees that got tacked on, and the financial pain of wanting to see our favorite bands was increasing. I mean, in the "good old days" each seat was $40, maximum. These $250 packages with parking fees extra, that's abominable.

As for short-term rentals, while I've embraced the new food delivery services and ride-sharing over taxis, I never felt like adopting short-term rentals over hotels. For reasons of insurance, safety, and billing, among other things. So I'm thankful that the FTC is doing stuff about both of these industries. I hope that this regulation will bring about some lasting change and consumer confidence.

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

#115

Post by moomin »

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.

Broad laws and regulations have obvious problems that should be evident to anyone who works with code for a living. There’s a reason lawyers are cautious and precise.

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

#117

Post by ctkhn »

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…

Corporate lobbyists. It's that simple.

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

#118

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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.

> hundreds of pages long and specific to the industry

Very convenient how it works out

For my behaviour the law is very short and clear - taking product or service without paying for it is theft.

If I pay for 1 car but take an additional wheel, I am a criminal.

But management of a company can wake up one day, take more money from my account and call it an additional fee for the same service.

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

#119

Post by thechao »

londons_explore wrote: post #106
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.

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.

I'm in the US, so you'll have to forgive my ignorance, here, but isn't the UK's tax law pretty tightly unified at the federal level? I once got into an argument with the county (Travis, Texas) over how to account for a penny difference in the calculation of sales tax. The resulting form involved (like) 6 govt entities and 7 pages of calculations.

EDIT: if I'd been in Burnet, it'd be almost completely different forms & calculations.

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

#120

Post by dredmorbius »

SkinTaco wrote: post #46
vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #31

[flagged]

That is unlikely considering this executive order https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/comb...

Given the admin's frequent use of carrot-stick incentives to achieve goals, I'd give fair odds to revised policy should affected parties bend knees sufficiently.

The fact that this consideration applies to any policy / enforcement / regulatory position the US government takes for the next four years, domestic or foreign, is of course its own immense problem.

Post reply on HN