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

261–270 of 363 posts

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#261

Post by dzhiurgis »

phil21 wrote: post #249
arnarbi wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, an…

More akin comparison would be charging for carryon vs condiments.

I just did trip with family where our allowance was 8 suitcases of 184 kg total weight. Buying same on a budget carrier we used on our leg would cost more than flights itself.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#263

Post by echoangle »

erentz wrote: post #210
SoftTalker wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should also be illegal. If I want to risk loss of my personal property that should be my decision to make.

It’s not your property they care about. They usually want this because it includes liability insurance if you damage their property or someone else’s, or your negligence causes harm to someone.

But then it should be included in the quoted price, right? It’s mandatory after all.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#264

Post by mschuster91 »

LadyCailin wrote: post #188
mschuster91 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end, someone will be there desperate enough to follow the boss's whim. Always. That is why regulation is so important.

We need regulation, yes, but also people who have a sense of goodness. We can’t legislate every aspect of a respectable society.

> We can’t legislate every aspect of a respectable society.

Well it's either capitalism and regulations with no end in sight to make sure that the rich don't exploit their power to exploit everyone else, or it's random executions of bosses for "moral wrongdoings", or it's something between communism and socialism.

All three carry different forms of dangers.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#265

Post by Razengan »

expedition32 wrote: post #135
Razengan wrote: post #15

Did a politician's kid rack up hundreds of dollars on some stupid game? I still don't know why Apple, oft parading as the people's champion, automatically converts trials to subscriptions. So many scummy apps exploit this by offering a 1 week trial and saying like "only $4/month!" but charging a 1 year's sub after the trial period ends.

Don't link a card or bank account to your play store account. They can't take money that isn't there.

I load money on the App Store with gift cards, that's why unintended subs suck even worse

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#267

Post by flyingshelf »

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…

The worst part of restaurant fees are the people (both owners and somehow the patrons) that will justify the existence of the fee as if it's too difficult to just print the final price in the menu.

I live in a touristy part of the world and effectively all restaurants above baseline level will have a "+7% service +11% tax" line.

To me this is clearly deceptive practice.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#268

Post by test6554 »

aczerepinski wrote: post #62
gumby wrote: post #16

These rules are great but “landmark” seems like puffery, as California has had such rules for quite a while. Ironically that has meant it’s hard to unsubscribe from the New York Times except in California.

I once wrote code that checks location before hiding/showing the cancel button. It’s really absurd that the nice experience exists on all subscription sites by now but you only get to see it if your state demands it.

Ohh, I need to VPN into nyc or california before trying to cancel my new york times subscription.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#269

Post by Computer0 »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #108
ar_lan wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no context of who you are/your position here, but the responses you're getting seem absurd to me. I just don't understand people placing the blame on you when it should be on your company. Most people in the world are just trying to keep their job - you did it. It wasn't something illegal, it was something that if you didn't do, you would have risked your job and then someone else would have done it anyway.

"I was just following orders" is not, and has never been, a credible defense of unethical behavior.

I see it everyday

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#270

Post by zhivota »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #258
evolve2k wrote: post #216

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…

If everyone is required to have an insurance - why not bury it in property tax/rates instead? In NZ we are not required to have third party medical cover because everyone is already covered by yearly car registration fee.

The answer to every question like this in the US is "because the wrong people would benefit".

In the past (and still today but less so), that literally meant black people. Now it mostly means poor people of all races.

It's been shown over and over that it's practically an American cultural value to accept lower benefits to yourself in trade for denying benefits to what you see as an undeserving group.

Post reply on HN