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

621–630 of 691 posts

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

#621

Post by xp84 »

Centigonal wrote: post #197
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's controversial. They do this to increase profits. A certain portion of the population is pro-profit at virtually any cost. It might seem like Dish employees wake up every day and say, "What can we do today to screw our customers even more?" But usually they're just trying to find ways to make more money.

Dish knows their satellite TV business is on the way out. Their strategy is to maximize the present value of that business by retaining and squeezing as many of those customers as much as possible, slowing the decline and pulling as much money out of that vertical for as long as they still have it, so that they can reinvest that cash into new verticals with more promise.

Re: failing business

To be fair, satellite TV has always been one of these even when it was a healthy business. High cost of acquisition, high commission for sales, high barrier to cancel.

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

#622

Post by llamaimperative »

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…

This apparently needs to be said a million times:

You could always argue in court that the agency’s interpretation of the statute was not reasonable. The court could always agree with you and establish case law against that interpretation.

It was a two part test:

1. Is the statute clear? If so, defer to statute. Otherwise, go to (2).

2. Is the agency’s interpretation reasonable? If so, defer to agency. Otherwise, the agency's rule is no longer enforceable.

Now, the court is allowed to come up with its own interpretation even in the presence of a reasonable agency interpretation. That is the only change. If the agency's interpretation was unreasonable, then it was already going to get thrown out.

The courts took the authority to throw out interpretations that they themselves (the court!) think are reasonable. Unreasonable interpretations were NEVER protected by Chevron deference.

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

#623

Post by Ajedi32 »

llamaimperative wrote: post #622
Ajedi32 wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This apparently needs to be said a million times: You could always argue in court that the agency’s interpretation of the statute was not reasonable. The court could always agree with you and establish case law against that interpretation. It was a two part test: 1. Is the statute clear? If so, defer to statute. Otherwise, go to (2). 2. Is the agency’s interpretation reasonable ? If so, defer to agency. Otherwise, th…

Correct, that's why I said "little possibility of legal challenge" not "no possibility of legal challenge". Proving something is "not reasonable" in a legal sense is a pretty high bar to clear. The point still stands.

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

#624

Post by llamaimperative »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #623
llamaimperative wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This apparently needs to be said a million times: You could always argue in court that the agency’s interpretation of the statute was not reasonable. The court could always agree with you and establish case law against that interpretation. It was a two part test: 1. Is the statute clear? If so, defer to statute. Otherwise, go to (2). 2. Is the agency’s interpretation reasonable ? If so, defer to agency. Otherwise, th…

Correct, that's why I said "little possibility of legal challenge" not " no possibility of legal challenge". Proving something is "not reasonable" in a legal sense is a pretty high bar to clear. The point still stands.

There's ample possibility of legal challenge. There was a low possibility of legal overturn for one specific reason: courts generally agreed that agencies' interpretations were reasonable.

> Proving something is "not reasonable" in a legal sense is a pretty high bar to clear

Sure it is, but that is literally not the bar. The courts always had the authority to do their own analysis of reasonableness so long as the challenger raised the question. In fact, they didn't just have the authority to do it, they were obligated to do it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/706

The low probability of overturn is an argument for Chevron deference. It is empirical proof that courts almost always found agencies' rules to be reasonable interpretations.

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

#625

Post by entropicdrifter »

dml2135 wrote: post #506
carlosjobim wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This. The market should be working for us human beings, not the other way around.

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

#626

Post by vacuity »

db48x wrote: post #614
hiatus wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now likely hundreds (or more) of individuals have to not only wait on hold forever, but have to learn the process of and actually go through with filing a small claim? That there is recourse is beside the point when it is mired in bureaucracy (not to mention taking days off to show up to court, etc).

Only a few would actually have to do it. But if everyone lets them get away with it, then I have no sympathy.

This isn't schoolchildren all being bystanders or victims to a peer bully. There is a much larger asymmetry in time, money, and credibilty here.

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

#627

Post by Ajedi32 »

llamaimperative wrote: post #624
Ajedi32 wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, that's why I said "little possibility of legal challenge" not " no possibility of legal challenge". Proving something is "not reasonable" in a legal sense is a pretty high bar to clear. The point still stands.

There's ample possibility of legal challenge. There was a low possibility of legal overturn for one specific reason: courts generally agreed that agencies' interpretations were reasonable. > Proving something is "not reasonable" in a legal sense is a pretty high bar to clear Sure it is, but that is literally not the bar. The courts always had the authority to do their own analysis of reasonableness so long as the cha…

The fact that they're analyzing the reasonableness of the agencies' interpretations and not the correctness of their interpretations is precisely the problem. There are a lot of possible interpretations of the law that are reasonable but not correct. The judiciary's job is supposed to be to interpret the law, not just to decide whether defendant's own personal interpretation meets some minimum bar of reasonableness.

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

#628

Post by llamaimperative »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #627
llamaimperative wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's ample possibility of legal challenge. There was a low possibility of legal overturn for one specific reason: courts generally agreed that agencies' interpretations were reasonable. > Proving something is "not reasonable" in a legal sense is a pretty high bar to clear Sure it is, but that is literally not the bar. The courts always had the authority to do their own analysis of reasonableness so long as the cha…

The fact that they're analyzing the reasonableness of the agencies' interpretations and not the correctness of their interpretations is precisely the problem. There are a lot of possible interpretations of the law that are reasonable but not correct. The judiciary's job is supposed to be to interpret the law, not just to decide whether defendant's own personal interpretation meets some minimum bar of reasonableness.

Arguing is easy when you simply assert your conclusion! :)

"Correctness" is an actually meaningless concept here. Correct according to which rubric? Please answer specifically.

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

#629

Post by entropicdrifter »

asciimov wrote: post #451
ensignavenger wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If MA has a single rate across the entire state that hasn't changed in 15 users, they are very different from how most other states operate.

Here in Texas you will nearly always be paying the maximum 8.25%, its been that way for 30+ years.

Same here in PA. 6% for basically everything besides non-prepared food and a couple other categories which are tax exempt

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

#630

Post by Ajedi32 »

llamaimperative wrote: post #628
Ajedi32 wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that they're analyzing the reasonableness of the agencies' interpretations and not the correctness of their interpretations is precisely the problem. There are a lot of possible interpretations of the law that are reasonable but not correct. The judiciary's job is supposed to be to interpret the law, not just to decide whether defendant's own personal interpretation meets some minimum bar of reasonableness.

Arguing is easy when you simply assert your conclusion! :) "Correctness" is an actually meaningless concept here. Correct according to which rubric? Please answer specifically.

Correct according to the mechanism our constitution defines for resolving disputes about the interpretation of law: the judgement of the court system. A judgement which they were not allowed to make under Cheveron, because they were limited to evaluating the reasonableness of the agency's own personal interpretation.
Post reply on HN