Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 363 posts

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#41

Post by nemomarx »

Jblx2 wrote: post #23
TylerE wrote: post #14

A big one I’ve been seeing a lot lately is advertising annual subscriptions as monthly rates. It isn’t $12/month subscription if I have to pay $120 in a lump sum up front. The actual monthly rate is often basically double what they’re advertising.

>$12/month subscription if I have to pay $120 in a lump sum up front. Sounds like they are giving you two months free if you pay with a lump sum in advance.

Which is a fair discount, but it should be like "15 a month, 120 if you get a year up front" right?

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#42

Post by nemomarx »

gzer0 wrote: post #40

Another 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.

It's crazy that people think they should get away with these. I've seen some examples where basic things like the number of windows or where the garage and driveway are was totally misrepresented - surely they'd at least look at the results?

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#44

Post by nadermx »

The irony with all this, is if a company makes it difficult to cancel their subscription, it's probably not a good product. Antidotically, I've found that making it easy for users to not only cancel, but refund, has given me eye opening things to fix in some products that made it so less people cancelled or refunded. So I try to always err on best user experience.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#45

Post by xp84 »

I wonder if the bit about 'junk fees' will include undisclosed hotel fees. I just stayed there last week in a no-frills "hotel" which doesn't include daily room cleaning, has no staff at night, and has no amenities whatsoever, and they charged me a surprise-at-check-in $35 a night resort fee. This fee was not described in the booking.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#46

Post by xp84 »

sxp wrote: post #5

It's unclear whether this junk fee law will have teeth. In theory, California has the same anti-drip pricing law, but restaurants have a specific carve out [1] 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. From what I can tell online, NYC rules won't have this carveout, but I…

[flagged]

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#47

Post by baq »

ryandrake wrote: post #27
sxp wrote: post #22

Earlier 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…

You may find some bits of culture are easier to change than others and I wager this one falls squarely in the ‘surprisingly easy’ category.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#48

Post by CodingJeebus »

gzer0 wrote: post #40

Another 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.

I agree, but how does one begin to enforce a ban like this? Bait-and-switch has always existed in real estate, which is all the more reason to do full due-diligence and inspect the property thoroughly and not just put in an offer sight unseen. If a seller is using AI to that extent, I'd be worried about what else they're hiding about the property.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#49

Post by Esophagus4 »

> When the Biden administration introduced a junk fee rule in 2024, the US Chamber of Commerce argued it was “an attempt to micromanage businesses’ pricing structures”, and apartment fees were cut from that federal rule after lobbying by the real-estate industry.

This drives me nuts to read, because it’s usually the same pattern.

Rule -> lobbyists descend -> politicians cave -> carve out that takes away the whole point of the rule -> everyone declares victory

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#50

Post by baq »

ryandrake wrote: post #30
LordAtlas wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're trying their best to make it seem that government policies and regulation compliance costs are responsible, hence the names of these charges.

Yea, it's basically restaurant owners trying to get their customers involved in their political whining. Notice how you never see things like "Business License Fee" or "Restaurant Electricity Bill Surcharge" listed out as separate line items on customers' bills. Those are things restaurant owners have to pay, too, so why don't they get their own charges to customers? Why does only "Living Wage" get a line item on the…

The elephant in the room would be an ‘employee salary surcharge’
Post reply on HN