FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices • Hacker News Board

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

#521

Post by mmooss » Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 7:18 PM UTC

intended wrote: post #402

jimmaswell wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a move afoot to eliminate all regulations unless they've been specifically passed by Congress. Which is basically incapable of passing anything. (At least some of) the agencies brought this on themselves with their abuse of the goodwill/benefit of the doubt previously afforded to them. Most flagrant has been the ATF, for one example constantly redefining machine guns or pistol braces, turning millions of c…

There’s always one part I find worth adding about government being ripe for abuse. Everything is ripe for abuse. ———- Right now, agencies are the defensive structures. Corporations which own media or parties that are effectively corporations - are the threat. One of the specific defenses that’s employed by private forces is reduction in trust of agencies. —— All systems are vulnerable. It’s a question of relative vul…

It's also about dividing power and checks and balances, and the legitimacy of democratic government.

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

#522

Post by lxgr » Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 7:20 PM UTC

The fact that it was ever legal to combine "taxes and fees" into one line item is baffling.

One is a thing 100% under control of the business trying to sell me a thing, the other 0%. Why should anybody get to scalp me and legally be able to blame it on the state/city government?

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

#523

Post by zippothrowaway » Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 7:20 PM UTC

SparkyMcUnicorn wrote: post #485

alberth wrote: post #432

The hidden fees is what turned me off from AirBnb... Because it would display the nightly rate as $X. But then at checkout, it would add in "house cleaning fees" etc (which I don't dispute is a fair fee to include) but it at times can grossly misrepresent what your true nightly cost is when searching. Maybe this will be a step in the direction like Telco's have had to do with creating simplified & standardized "nutri…

On AirBnB just check the "Display total before taxes" box on the search results page. Not including fees in the nightly rate makes sense as some are fixed rate, and having the option to see the cost for the total stay (including fees) solves the problem.

That's still not the total!

It can be done. Marriott show the total including taxes. Mind you, this was as a result of a legal settlement, so they get no credit.

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

#524

Post by themaninthedark » Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 7:20 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #460

rietta wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because that is the constraints that the U.S. Constitution places on our form of Federal government. The Congress passes laws (and controls the money), the Executive implements the law, and the Courts interpret the law. My lay understanding is that Chevron shifted too much power from the Congress and the Courts to the administrative agencies in the Executive branch. It seemed like a "good idea" at the time but o…

What abuses

Well, if you look at the case that was in front of the court when they overturned Chevron: The National Marine Fishery Service decided that since the Magnuson–Stevens Act allows for them to place monitors on fishing vessels in order to prevent the over-fishing of certain species but since their budget was lower and they couldn't actually afford to pay the monitors they decided that each ship would have to pay for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Ra...

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

#525

Post by lxgr » Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 7:25 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #430

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me that is totally fine. If there are electives, then elective them. Fix the mandatory ones first. Like the “resort fee” hotels charge. Or “cleaning fees”. It becomes trickier when the fee is elective, but a significant part of the advertisement. Southwest Airlines complaining about having to advertise their fares, which come with two bags included, alongside other airlines who don’t include any bags comes to mind…

Did you...actually read what they wrote there? The (hypothetical) airfare was listed as "free", but it was impossible to end up paying less than $1200 for it. The point being that even if you have a choice between several fees (making none of them "mandatory" by a narrow reading), you're still paying something beyond the advertised base price. The logical good-faith rule in a case like this would be that you must adv…

That's very easily solved: The minimum total price of all possible selectable options is the cheapest price that can be legally advertised. Treat non-viable options that just exist as a false baseline as false advertisement, just like it's already illegal to e.g. send out a flyer advertising TVs for $1, but there's only one available at the other end of the state/country.

It's really not a practical problem in any country that has the appropriate laws. The only thing it takes to fix this is the political will to do so.

I recently ordered cake for $x, with a mandatory selection of "size". The only possible size was "large", which cost an add-on fee of $3. Just make that type of stuff illegal yesterday. Absolutely nothing of value will be lost.

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

#526

Post by lxgr » Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 7:31 PM UTC

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.

This might practically achieve the desired outcome, but do note that just not paying does not extinguish your debt to anyone you have a valid contract with.

I've seen Americans living in Europe get bitten by this quite frequently in some countries, where sending something to collections is both commonly done and the collection agency will successfully take you to court and win in almost all cases even for pennies.

On the other hand, the EU has had "two-click cancellation" regulations for a while now, so there is a better alternative available for both sides (customer and company).

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

#527

Post by bobthepanda » Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 7:32 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #192

bobthepanda wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think airlines are a great example because the fees are often actually paying for something materially different. When purchasing concert tickets recently I got a "mobile convenience fee" for an e-ticket even though the venue doesn't operate a physical box office. A recent hotel had a "resort fee" that was not opt-out even if you didn't use the amenities it allegedly paid for. These kinds of BS fees should go away.

Non-opt-out resort fees and facility fees and the like are especially annoying. They're also (presumably deliberately) a small enough portion of the total amount that they're not really worth getting into a big lather about. I think we're agreeing. While a lot of airline fees are nickel-and-diming, they're also over and above transporting people from A to B, in many cases for as little money as they want to spend as…

These days they’re not that small. I recently paid $20+ in fees for a $60 face value concert ticket.

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

#528

Post by lxgr » Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 7:33 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #507

LoganDark wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What dispute reason would you give? Usually card issuers will ask you if you've made any attempt to settle the situation with the merchant.

If you misrepresent that you have and they are just ignoring you, you might practically get away with it, but do know that that kind of misrepresentation might get you into trouble some day.

If however the merchant is actually unreachable for a bona fide cancellation request, that's totally on them.

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

#529

Post by Alupis » Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 7:34 PM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #380

Alupis wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Progressive income tax is also silly. Just because you earn more money than someone else doesn't mean you derive more benefits from the government. The idea of "Paying what you can afford" is BS everywhere it's been implemented - from school tuition to soccer camp to taxes. Everyone feels burned and like the "others" aren't paying what they should be. Federal taxes should be a flat percentage, no deductions, no credi…

Our philosophies differ. > Progressive income tax is also silly. Just because you earn more money than someone else doesn't mean you derive more benefits from the government. I think "pay what you can afford" is fair because the only way to make half a million dollars (or more) a year is to disproportionately reap the benefits of society. Marginal income tax is fair in the sense that everyone does pay the same. Your…

> disproportionately reap the benefits of society

This is where we fundamentally disagree.

You buy products because you want/like them. The people who make them are not disproportionately reaping benefits of society - they are reaping benefits of creating productive and desirable products.

This view flirts with the idea that people "extract" wealth from the public, and that people are taken advantage of and/or manipulated into buying things.

> I definitely don't feel this way and I am happy to pay my marginal rates. I just don't think they go far enough.

People universally feel the government (local, state, federal) overwhelmingly wastes their tax money - yet so many people demand others pay more of their earned income to this uncaring ineffective machine. Tax receipts will never be enough for the government, and some people will continue to advocate plowing more of other people's money into the dark abyss. That's madness.

> Do you propose a flat income tax or a flat wealth tax? Should capital gains be taxed as income?

I propose a straight flat income tax percentage, without any deductions, credits, anything. While the percentage is fixed, the dollar amount obviously scales with income. Things like capital gains are solved this way by taxing the actual income you generated from the investments.

I'm making up numbers, but say it's 20%. No matter if you earned $1 of income, or $1,000,000 - you pay 20%.

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

#530

Post by lxgr » Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 7:36 PM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #416

TylerE wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have hundreds of years of examples of the blessed free market failing to do exactly that. If the free market had it's way we'd still be under the yoke of Standard Oil and Ma Bell. One key element of a free market is the "well informed consumer". How is the consumer supposed to be informed about what new cutting edge chemicals are toxic, for instance?

For the hundreds of years of examples, we have not had an interconnected network with information available to almost every human on the planet.

Information is good, but it doesn't automatically imply that you have an actionable path in getting what's legally yours. Besides that, the Internet hasn't nearly eradicated the inherent information and attention asymmetry between consumers and companies employing people full time to make sure they end up on top for every interaction you have with them.

Consumer protection regulations, especially those regarded trading and credit, cast a very long shadow (ray of sunlight?) you're possibly unaware of, but still immensely benefit from.

Obviously there are diminishing returns and unintended/negative effects to consumers too sometimes, but throwing protections out completely in favor of a "pure free market" doesn't do these asymmetries justice.