This should be federal law.
New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices
31–40 of 363 posts
Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices
#32Nintendo (subscription I have for my switch to access some older a classic games btw) is very good reminding me I have a subscription and whether I want to cancel (or renew). I don't have the email at hand but what I remember is thinking they really desire you to reflect to cancel (rather than a push to renew) if not wanting continued service. Sentiment of politeness and I find a good example what to do. Also, not a…
> where a preselected tip is selected. Default should be no.
A lot of this push to higher and higher and preselected tip options comes from POS software providers (Square et al) and credit card companies. They make money on transaction volume. Higher transaction -> more fees
Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices
#33This should be federal law.
Indeed. But the feds have picked a side, and right now, it's not yours.
Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> which is bullshit because the drip pricing that most people complain about is the X% "service charges" and "lifestyle fees" that restaurants have at the bottom of their menu in small print. I don't think I go to the same restaurants as everyone else.
I tried searching for what a "lifestyle fee" is and all I could find is references to "living wage fee" which is essentially a forced tip added to the bill. A service charge for large groups though is understandable as they typically will require much more attention and work from waitstaff than the typical small dining party.
Large groups are also the most notorious non-tippers.
Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices
#35Will New York City residents be able to avoid AT&T's "Administrative and Regulatory Cost Recovery Fee"?
https://www.al.com/news/2026/07/att-customers-your-cell-phon...
Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices
#36No mention of the New York Times, or its practices?
Why should it be mentioned? The article doesn't call out any other specific company by name. Is the Times really that egregious of a offender compared to the other businesses? Does new york city have a history of selectively enforcing laws to favor local businesses?
New York Times is one of the worst and most famous offenders of making it hard to cancel your subscription. There are companies that make it as hard or spammy but few with the reach of the NYT
Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices
#37Nintendo (subscription I have for my switch to access some older a classic games btw) is very good reminding me I have a subscription and whether I want to cancel (or renew). I don't have the email at hand but what I remember is thinking they really desire you to reflect to cancel (rather than a push to renew) if not wanting continued service. Sentiment of politeness and I find a good example what to do. Also, not a…
It goes
> Subject: Information about Your Automatic Renewal
> This is an automatically generated email from Nintendo for customers who have a Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack individual 12‑month (365‑day) membership set to renew automatically.
> Dear [user],
> Your Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack individual 12‑month (365‑day) membership will automatically renew soon.
> ...
> Deadline to turn off automatic renewal: [1 month from now]
It also does this right when you first sign up for automatic renewal except the deadline is [1 year from now].
Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices
#38No mention of the New York Times, or its practices?
Why should it be mentioned? The article doesn't call out any other specific company by name. Is the Times really that egregious of a offender compared to the other businesses? Does new york city have a history of selectively enforcing laws to favor local businesses?
I was thinking more of the Times and Guardian being in rather similar lines of work, and the opportunity to cast some shade on a rival.
Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
From TFA: > Rule from Mamdani administration ... targets ‘junk fees’ > The city is also targeting so-called “junk fees” that raise the final price of everything from apartments to sporting events, with a proposed rule that requires sellers to “advertise the total price for any good or service, including all mandatory additional charges and fees, up front”, according to a release shared with the Guardian.
> proposed rule that requires sellers to “advertise the total price for any good or service, including all mandatory additional charges and fees, up front” This is going to be tough to enact, anywhere in the USA, even New York. There is nothing quite as American as "not knowing what you're going to pay for something until you have to pay." Whether it's your doctor bill, restaurant bill with tips and service fees, you…
I mean culturally we're used to it, but it seems really easy to test for and therefore fine businesses doing it in NYC? Just go ring up some purchase and see if they add a tax onto the listed price, and if they do report it.
Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices
#40Another one that belongs on this list: AI-generated photos in housing listings. You can no longer tell what the property actually looks like, and the images conveniently erase the problem spots you'd only catch in person. False advertising is getting completely out of hand.