Live data from Hacker News

New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

theguardian.com

241–250 of 363 posts

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#241
post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To get paid, obviously. We're all self interested actors here.

Nuremberg defense. I thought the HN crowd at least pretended to be somewhat better.

Oh definitely not. Many of us work in tech. Many of us are the people that wrote the code that other people on this website complain about as anti-patterns, dark patterns, etc.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in CA they need to disclose them now. Previously some restaurants would just hit you with a surprise mandatory tip.

Usually by the time people are seated and you read the fine print on the back of the menu, inertia has taken over.

Exactly. Already decided to eat there and sat down. At that point, "whatever", for any noticed or not additional minor charges.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#243

This is what legitimate government looks like. Leaders actually advocating for the people who are being deceived by those in power instead of helping those in power. While this may be a trivial issue, being able to cancel a gym or newspaper subscription, it sends a signal. Companies need to view customers as partners in a business transaction and not objects to be exploited.

>This is what legitimate government looks like. Do you mean good government? Or well-functioning? Any government that is formed legally is legitimate.

Good question.

Government should represents and advocate for the best interests of the entire population. It should legislate for both people and companies to behave fairly towards each other.

Consider the gym membership. You join and sign a one year contract. The terms are that you can cancel after that period, but if the gym hides or dark-patterns the cancel procedure, are they really offering you the contractually agreed upon ability to cancel? They are not.

We all know what fair is. Just because companies (and sometimes individual people) have outsized power against their customers, it does not give them the moral right to abuse that power.

So, I believe in this case Mamdani is engaging in both good and well-functioning governance. And that to me is morally legitimate.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#244
post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know what standards you are referring to, but yea I would call it flagrantly unethical for sure.

Is not showing a cancel button quickly better or worse than treating accessibility as a checkbox and producing things which many people struggle to use despite laws requiring you to support them? Shoving unwanted features into a bundle? Encouraging people to use Chrome by introducing dependencies on proprietary features or not testing other browsers? Designing apps with bloated JavaScript frameworks which are borderl…

Doing bad things is bad and people don't get a free pass just because someone is giving them money for it.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it would be a federal concern, but a state one. However, in this case it’s because NYC law is typically allowed under NY state law to be stronger (but not weaker) than any corresponding state law.

NY law already requires easy cancellation https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/GBS/527-A?utm_sour...

Yeah, this is why I highlighted “stricter, but never weaker.”

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#246
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…

Not me. I always get the real information before I pay. But you have to be persistent and have a desire to know. Medial fees is the same you have to contact them and have them look up the code for the fees. We are in this situation because people don't challenge this shit.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#247
post #6

Any chance you could lend Mamdani to the UK? We have a vacancy.

Hasn’t Sadiq Khan been a similar story, from a Muslim immigrant family turned popular mayor of the nation’s largest city? Though from what I understand he’s from the more business-oriented center-left, in contrast with Mamdani.

[deleted]

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Australia we have very strong consumer protection law, here it’s expected (by the bank usually) the landlord has at least a minimum “landlord insurance” that covers all that stuff. For anything not covered, where a tenant does damage thats what the bond is for. Renter insurance should be optional. Actually I’m surprised that landlord insurance is not already occurring, imagine a building with 100 apartments, I’m s…

Same here. This has only been a thing recently when landlords figured out they could make money selling the insurance. When I was a renter, insurance was never required from me.

It was required in all my boilerplate leases going back to the late 90s. Just rarely if ever enforced or even asked about.

You’d just end up with some giant uncollectable judgement against you if you ended up burning down the apartment complex via negligence. Landlords insurance company would potentially come after you, but probably not since it would not be worth their time for most tenants.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because increasing prices by that percentage is too hard?

Restaurant owners interviewed in the media here in SF are directly quoted saying they can’t do that because “customers would notice”, or think “oh that’s expensive, I can’t eat out twice a week”. These are arguments for including the fees that make the customer __still pay the same higher price__, implying that the whole point is that they won’t notice. And reporters don’t seem to even register the absurdity of those…

It’s the same thing with any “menu” vs actual price.

Airline baggage fees are probably the prototypical case for this. Airlines that did not display the lowest price during flight searches got outcompeted by those that did. This led the entire industry to change since it took an entire decade long marketing campaign centered around it (Southwest) to try to stay even.

Consumers make irrational choices all the time, and this is one of them. They absolutely notice the final bill and complain while continuing to patronize businesses that engage in such behavior.

Consumers would need to reward honest pricing if they wanted this to change. Or vote for regulation.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#250

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…

> "Restaurant Electricity Bill Surcharge"

Unfortunately you’ve spoken too soon on this one. I recently had an energy surcharge added due to the “Iran war” (as explained by the server) added to every check.

Post reply on HN