New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices • Hacker News Board

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#341

Post by otterley » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 8:05 PM UTC

echoangle wrote: post #340

dml2135 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are leasing a car they would certainly also require you to obtain insurance as part of your lease agreement. Same deal with an apartment.

Why would they? Would they not just sue you for the damages if you break the car? Why would they care? I never leased a car but I thought they checked that you have enough money for the lease to prevent people from defaulting. But even if it is true, I think the price of the insurance (or at least some reference value for comparison, assuming there are multiple competing offers) should be included in the sticker pric…

First, legal proceedings are expensive and may cost more than the car is worth. Second, the lessor may not be solvent enough to pay the damages all at once (“you can’t squeeze blood from a stone”). Third, the money to take the car off the lot in a lease agreement is fronted by a third party, a lender. The lender is likely calling the shots here. See https://lessee.cula.com/documents/CULA-Lease-Welcome-Brochur...

For the same reason, purchase-money lenders (in a buy-vs-lease situation) typically require the debtor to hold a comprehensive insurance policy until the vehicle is paid off. It protects their interest.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#342

Post by ar_lan » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 8:14 PM UTC

constantius wrote: post #296

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.

Saying no is always an option, and this seemed like the opportunity for this. Highly paid devs consistently choosing to do this and using the "following orders"/"food on the table" defense should be socially unacceptable. However, the parent seems to feel no guilt despite the many comments blaming him, so I think protecting his feelings is not necessary.

90% of my coworkers are H1B and are basically perpetually terrified of being deported. I completely disagree with your assessment.

> so I think protecting his feelings is not necessary.

No, just the barrage of completely lacking-of-empathy responders need your white-knighting. It’s a good thing you’re here for them.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#343

Post by inigyou » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 8:58 PM UTC

nixon_why69 wrote: post #308

inigyou wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically the one who disabled the cancel button in places that don't legally require it.

They commented upthread that they actually enabled it for the two states that legally require it.

That was harder than enabling it for all states. They went out of their way to ensure that users from 48 states could not cancel.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#344

Post by phil21 » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 12:51 AM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #317

phil21 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The liability limits on most renters insurance policies are low $100Ks, because most renters don't have many assets they need to protect. This would be pretty inconsequential in the scenario of "burning down the apartment complex." Landlords/owners have their own fire and liability insurance (ultimately paid for by the tenants as part of their rent); it's unnecessary to demand that the tenants provide their own. Rent…

> My leases always point out that the landlord's insurance does not cover the tenant's personal property or liability, and recommend renter's insurance. But it's not required.

I generally agree, obviously for a "burn the place down" incident the renter's policy is going to be rather inconsequential, and likely not even actionable.

But for more "medium" stuff like "flood the unit below me because I left the bath on and left for work" where the liability is in the low $10k's, that's where I see landlords (and their covering policies) wanting the renter's insurance to kick in and cover.

I personally find it a bit slimey - if you're a landlord this is just part of the risk of being a landlord. If you don't have the capital to cover such incidents, then you should simply not be a landlord. Sorry.

Trying to squeeze an extra few dollars per month out of tenants is ridiculous, but seems to be the way everything is going when you get hyper-financialization and PE type firms buying multiple buildings.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#345

Post by efreak » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 4:21 AM UTC

fhdkweig wrote: post #29

patrickmay wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because increasing prices by that percentage is too hard?

If you want to claim "we have the lowest prices in town" in advertising, you can't increase the "price".

That's why you don't say _in town_. That's verifiable and specific. You just say _lowest prices_ (nobody cares if you aren't specific), or add fine print that specifies a time/location (Amazon renewed: comparison price is the brand new version of same item on Amazon itself) or _only at $store_ (your competitors aren't participating in your branded sale).

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#346

Post by triceratops » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 4:23 AM UTC

constantius wrote: post #296

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.

Saying no is always an option, and this seemed like the opportunity for this. Highly paid devs consistently choosing to do this and using the "following orders"/"food on the table" defense should be socially unacceptable. However, the parent seems to feel no guilt despite the many comments blaming him, so I think protecting his feelings is not necessary.

> using the "following orders"/"food on the table" defense should be socially unacceptable...the parent seems to feel no guilt despite the many comments blaming him

Wild to compare implementing dark UX patterns to working at a concentration camp. Why not blame the electorate for voting poorly?

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#347

Post by triceratops » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 4:24 AM UTC

walt_grata wrote: post #156

acdha wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t like it either but blame goes to the top of the org chart. That’s not illegal or, by the standards of the field, flagrantly unethical so it’s a bit extreme to expect someone to resign over.

Blame goes to everyone involved. From the decision makers to the implementors

So the voters too, then? They could've elected politicians who passed laws against this.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#348

Post by jdashg » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 6:59 AM UTC

jvanderbot wrote: post #86

qmr wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you do something so immoral?

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

We are not all selfish actors here. Who have you surrounded yourself with in your life, that you would end up believing that we're all self-interested actors here?

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#349

Post by inigyou » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 11:39 AM UTC

stingraycharles wrote: post #260

xp84 wrote: post #45

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.

What the hell is a resort fee?

It's a money extraction technique of either last or first resort.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#350

Post by inigyou » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 11:55 AM UTC

IncreasePosts wrote: post #85

bijowo1676 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for service workers, up to 25k in tips can be deducted from taxable income ("no tax on tips")

Is there something about serving people food that means you should get a tax break? Or is that just a holdover of cash tipping to kindly get servers to actually declare the full value if their tips as wages instead of just saying they magically weren't tipped all year

IIRC it was naked vote-buying.