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

581–590 of 691 posts

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

#581

Post by HelloMcFly »

tokioyoyo wrote: post #245
HelloMcFly wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> estimate it based on geolocation and say "more exact will be available once you enter your address". I appreciate this can be done and countries in Europe do it, I just don't see how this is any better at all than status quo: * Current State: we all know the quoted price doesn't include sales tax, which will be added to make the final price in checkout after we enter our address. * Final State: we all know the quot…

The only reason why status quo is there because people are less likely to remove items from their online shopping carts once they've added it. There are techniques and shopping check out flows that have been perfected over the years to drive up the online sales. Realistically, it won't move the needle for the people who are on this forum because of the average salary (a few dollars are usually not a big deal for us),…

> I'm not sure why one wouldn't want to know the real price before the checkout.

Because you'd never actually know if it's the final real price or not until you entered your address! That's the entire premise of my objection, was that not clear?

If we want to talk about displaying final price for my confirmed shipping address then yeah, I'm all in for that.

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

#582

Post by Terretta »

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…

People should have ensured click-to-cancel was passed before demanding subscriptions outside Google Play and Apple's app stores.

Well, depends which people, I suppose: subscribers or providers...

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

#584

Post by benreesman »

dayvid wrote: post #497
benreesman wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the public will just accept arbitrary oppression with no limit? No, the investor class will arrive at the negotiating table one way or another on a long enough timeline. It will be up to them if they still have legs to walk on. The really scary fascists aren’t stupid: Thiel and those guys are buying bunkers in New Zealand as fast as the checks clear. They understand something that the American public lost sight o…

If the podcasts spin it well enough, they'll have a large leeway

Rogan and Lex went from interesting Internet shit to terrifyingly effective accomplices of aspiring fascists really abruptly.

I’m not sure even they realize how dangerous they’ve become.

I’m sorry: we’re past the point where you can normalize Thiel world and not be a menace. I like both of those guys in general, I hope they have the moral courage to take a stand against the really scary shit.

But until they’ll flat renounce this psycho aspiring despot shit they’re net negative.

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

#585

Post by mulmen »

lxgr wrote: post #578
mulmen wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On an ecommerce site where you already selected your destination sure, the total can be displayed in some cases. How should volume discounts, coupons, and shipping incentives be handled? What about a grocery store on the Oregon/Idaho border? Idaho charges sales tax to residents but that can be waived with an Oregon ID. Should this be reflected in the advertised price? And what about billboard or TV advertisements or…

> How should volume discounts, coupons, and shipping incentives be handled? I don't care, to be honest. If the merchant knows I can definitely get the cheaper rate without jumping through extra hoops, I don't see a problem in showing the lower price. > What about a grocery store on the Oregon/Idaho border? Idaho charges sales tax to residents but that can be waived with an Oregon ID. Should this be reflected in the a…

> I don't care, to be honest. If the merchant knows I can definitely get the cheaper rate without jumping through extra hoops, I don't see a problem in showing the lower price.

But that discount is contingent on what you might add to your cart in the future and the shipping options you choose. Items can have complex interactions when purchased together. This isn’t just tax. It’s shipping, discounts, gift wrap, and coupons. All of which are taxed and possibly at different rates. You have the luxury of not caring. The merchant doesn’t.

> Wow, really? Fascinating/frustrating!

That’s a tame example. If I buy a car in Oregon where there’s no sales tax I still might have to pay Washington use tax to get plates. This is still the case if I buy the car in Miami, or Toronto. So how does advertising work in that situation?

https://dor.wa.gov/forms-publications/publications-subject/t...

> Maybe the only solution really is to simplify the horror that is US sales tax, and that's obviously never happening. Think of all the jobs in tax preparation and software...

Our complex tax codes are not a conspiracy to create jobs in tax prep. The right to levy our own taxes was a primary motivation of the revolution. In our system of government power is decentralized. That means individual states, counties, and towns can charge their own taxes.

Say my city votes to provide free residential broadband to residents and fund it with a telco tax on private ISP service.

“Simplifying” the tax code by just not allowing the city to do that is literally antithetical to our society. It’s an undermining of the laboratory of democracy.

That may sound hyperbolic but “I find this complexity confusing” just isn’t a compelling argument for kneecapping our democracy.

Make everything as simple as possible but no simpler.

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

#586

Post by modriano »

potato3732842 wrote: post #290
jfengel wrote: post #231

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. Ironically, that inherent dysfunction is the main reason to suspect that won't happen. But politically, every regulation as automatically partisan, even when it has overwhelming support.

>There is a move afoot to eliminate all regulations unless they've been specifically passed by Congress. Which is basically incapable of passing anything. It's hard to argue with this in principal. The rules as law BS has been a band-aid over dysfunction. It needs to go. It'll hurt in the short term but should be more sustainable in the long term. That people will get more angry at congress for doing nothing is icing…

> It's hard to argue with this in principal. The rules as law BS has been a band-aid over dysfunction. It needs to go.

It's very easy to argue with this in principle. Congress can't be constantly updating every law as new technology or situations emerge. It's much better for laws to set general goals and leave implementation to agencies staffed with experts.

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

#587

Post by foobarchu »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #488
nyczomg wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make the rule such that if you can sign up for a service on a website you can also cancel it said website. Now your hypothetical landscaping company is safe

Are they? A very basic website can easily have a form you can fill to sign up and all it does on the back end is send an email with the info to the proprietors. Even a generic mailto: or tel: link arguably makes it possible to sign up via the website, if tapping the link on your phone to send a message can directly result in a signup. To do the same thing for cancellations you'd have trouble avoiding the need for cus…

A local business with a simple email form isn't going to sign you up without calling you to get more information and make sure you're a real person. That's already setting a precedent that you call them to cancel.

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

#588

Post by lmm »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #434
lmm wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what happens when you buy that ticket and don't pay any of the fees? If you get taken to Hawaii then they're in the clear. If they won't take you without you paying the fee then I guess the fee wasn't optional after all.

Buy the ticket how? Look at the fees for paying--you can't actually buy the ticket without paying for it.

Well I think advertising a price that you can't get the ticket for needs to be banned.

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

#589

Post by aziaziazi »

FateOfNations wrote: post #563
aziaziazi wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would boycott get a chance? The honest restaurants bragging "NO FEES" would gather more customers and the others follow. Wondering, is there already US places that works without tips like in most other places ? (Owner pays a decent salary to its employees, include that in all products they sell and don’t expect tips)

Various restaurant operators have experimented with what you described but haven't succeeded. The big issue is that servers hate it specifically because owners use the additional revenue to "pay a decent salary to their employees. " This generally includes all the employees, not just the formerly tipped ones. The kitchen staff ends up getting a significant pay bump, and servers get what amounts to a cut in their take…

Thanks. Perhaps what’s lacking is a legal decent minimum wage then.

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

#590

Post by amanaplanacanal »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #453
maximusdrex wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your understanding is not correct. Chevron deference never meant agencies can just make up and pass law; it was a legal doctrine which merely stated that in places where the law is ambiguous (say a law declares water must be clean of pollutants, or bans pistol braces) that courts should look at any guidance from relevant agencies for guidance, since supposedly they should know more about the subject than the courts.…

> Chevron deference never meant agencies can just make up and pass law Not on it's own, no. The bigger culprit there is the erosion of the nondelegation doctrine. But Chevron aggravated the problem by allowing agencies to stretch their authority beyond what even congress intended with little possibility of legal challenge. Interpreting the law is and should be the role of the courts, not the role of the agencies that…

The thing is: if Congress thinks executive branch agencies are interpreting laws in ways they didn't intend, they can change the law to clarify their intent. If they fail to do so, I have to assume the agencies are doing what Congress intended. But the supreme Court evidently disagrees.
Post reply on HN