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

FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 691 posts

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#501

Post by ssl-3 »

_zoltan_ wrote: post #406
flutas wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sales tax is up to the states to sort out how to deal with on their own, and there's 50 of them. To add on for any else trying to figure out the 13k number from this statement. Counties can also apply their own additional taxes. Cities can also apply their own additional taxes. On top of just that, the cities and counties can set different taxes in the same area, such as a sugar tax or an alcohol tax or even a pre-…

it can get really easy: just don't let this madness sprawl out of control? :) per state, I understand the tax. set it per state, and be done with it. maybe split it in some % with the city (I don't know if cities directly get a portion of it already or not?), so it's a win-win.

Maybe that works. I have concerns about IP geolocation databases being able to pin me down to a particular state, but maybe.

But even assuming "good enough" IP geolocation exists: In order for this to be implemented both uniformly and nationally, we'd need a new constitutional amendment that would grant the federal government the ability to regulate how sales taxes work within states.

Because right now, we have this: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#502

Post by mikestew »

noprocrasted wrote: post #493
mikestew wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just don't pay, and point them to (small claims?) court if they want to get paid for the service they don't provide. Have you actually tried this? Because having not tried it myself, I'd bet a paycheck that you get sent to collections, get a ding on your credit report, and you're still on the hook for taking it to court if you want it resolve to your favor. (Assuming U. S.) And as a cherry on top of that shit sun…

I have done so multiple times, albeit in the UK. When collections calls, you explain them the situation (service not provided or whatever, and evidence of trying to resolve it with them in good faith) and they go away. Have yet to see a court summons or anything, although I'd love to see them try their lies in court. I did not care about the credit report impact - it's probably the only valid reason not to do this if…

I have done so multiple times, albeit in the UK.

Thanks for the follow-up. I suspect UK does make a difference, but IANAL in either country. I do, however, have a bit of personal experience in the U. S. :-)

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#503

Post by specialist »

eadmund wrote: post #286
throw10920 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a move afoot Who is behind this move? What individuals, and what politicians? By what legal means is this happening? I've literally never heard of anything like this before - without further details, this is just political flame-baiting.

> By what legal means is this happening? Article I, section 1 of the Constitution: ‘All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.’ It doesn’t say, ‘Congress may delegate its legislative Powers to the Executive.’ Arguably, the ‘shall’ language forbids that! Article I, section 8 does give the Congress the authority…

While complimentary, the various policy, legislating, rules making, procedures, and enforcement are distinct activities in the governmental stack.

By necessity, legislators delegate rule making to agencies.

Who do you want determining the precise definition of a kilogram? Congress or NIST?

By necessity, some rules have the force of law. Like how many state's Secretaries of State are entrusted with clearly scoped essential administrivia, like how to run elections.

Do you really want legislators doing the technical and operational evaluation of tabulators?

Of course, precisely where the lines are between various jurisdictions must be adjudicated. That's why we have the courts. IIRC, most cases heard by SCOTUS pertain to administrative law.

How else could our government function?

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#504

Post by kstrauser »

dh2022 wrote: post #440
paulryanrogers wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this what small claims court is for?

Terms and Conditions usually spell out the dispute process. You may find out that disputes need to go to arbitration court in a different state.

Alternatively, you can take them to small claims court and see if the judge there is hyper-interested in upholding their insanely restrictive contracts. They can appeal a judgment, of course, but that's likely to be far more expensive for them than just honoring the decision.

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#505

Post by sdwr »

meiraleal wrote: post #304
sdwr wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idealist: "the free market is perfect!" Realist: "the free market has flaws, which can be addressed by..." Replace "free market" with anything you like

The realist might be an idealist that is seeing inexistent flaws tho

Very true.

The definition of realist has flaws...

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#506

Post by dml2135 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #205
EdwardDiego wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? Minimising monopolies is how you keep the free market competitive.

Free competition should mean that you don't get punished for winning. There is no sport that punishes a competitor who is constantly winning, as long as they are competing fairly. Imagine Schwarzenegger being banned from Mr Olympia or Gretzky being banned for life from minor league ice hockey. So that the other competitors are given a fair chance of winning. But every sport punishes competitors who are cheating or be…

The economy is not a sport to be won. I think you are maybe prioritizing a some notion of fairness to those competing in the market, while to someone like Khan the thinking is more, how can we make the market function in a way that provides the biggest net-benefit to society?

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#507

Post by lern_too_spel »

LoganDark wrote: post #152
breadwinner wrote: post #140

This shouldn't be controversial. FTC isn't banning these fees, it is only requiring merchants to disclose the fees. Why would anyone be against that? Another good rule is click-to-cancel. Just a couple of days ago I logged into my Dish Network account to cancel it (after they hiked prices). There is no way to cancel online. There is no way to cancel via chat. You have to call. As soon as you call you're told the wait…

My preferred way to cancel these types of services is to close or pause the card they're charging. If you use a virtual card service like Privacy.com, this is easy, if you don't, then maybe not so much. But using virtual cards for everything you can is typically a good idea anyway, imo.

Even simpler, file a dispute with your card issuer. Dish will pay the chargeback fee and block you as a customer, but I'm sure you don't want to be their customer again, so that's not a problem.

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#508

Post by n144q »

conductr wrote: post #224
currymj wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when you buy a ticket online, you are actually buying an option on the ticket, because you can go in and refund it at any time before the movie starts. the “convenience fee” is the option premium. it would be fairer if this were opt-in. Some e commerce sites now allow you to pay a few extra dollars to have free returns, something similar would work for movies.

No, this is complicating things. A physical ticket can also be refunded prior to show time. It's not an option at all, it's just a fee. They are charging you to 1) pick your seat 2) not have to show up early 3) peace of mind knowing your spot is reserved - all of those things are conveniences in the purest sense of the word. In many cases, the fee is more closely related to a platform fee going to fandango or similar…

I think the "convenience fee" of online purchases is about the fact that if you want to buy a ticket days before showtime, you don't have to get a physical ticket at the box office in person.

Not necessarily that I agree with it though -- in many parts of the world you have no such fees when you buy a movie ticket online.

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#509

Post by Rygian »

Freedom2 wrote: post #306
dotancohen wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is a law needed to address this? Isn't the market supposed to adjust for companies like this?

Precisely. The overarching HN view, although it's not a monolith (so the viewpoint isn't shared by all), is that the free market solves for all things and regulation by the government is largely a waste of taxpayer money that could be going to other things worthwhile (roads, military, police).

I guess you mean the taxpayer money that the taxpayers are currently paying, against their will, towards unwanted subscriptions that they haven't managed to cancel.

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#510

Post by acuozzo »

mattlondon wrote: post #170
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember shopping in Japan. The price on the tag, is exactly what you pay (same with services, like hotels). Since this is Japan, it's a high price, but no surprises. Also, the service is amazing , and they won't accept tips. If you leave money on the table, they will chase after you, to give it back.

Same in UK. As a kid, having grown up in the UK I knew that if the price label said £1.99 and I had £2 in my pocket I could afford it, with £0.01 change. First time I went to the USA as a young teenager I remember being quite embarrassed when the thing I thought I was getting for $1.99 was actually not $1.99 but $2.17 or whatever, and I had to leave without buying. Felt quite deceptive and totally incomprehensible.

> Felt quite deceptive and totally incomprehensible.

In the case of sales tax, it's deliberate propaganda. "Here's what we would have charged you if it weren't for greedy old Uncle Sam."

Post reply on HN