[HN Gopher] FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices
___________________________________________________________________
FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices
Author : LordAtlas
Score : 206 points
Date : 2024-12-17 20:36 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| gnabgib wrote:
| From the FTC (9 points, 1 comment)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42441347
| munk-a wrote:
| An excellent change. It's unfortunate that stewardship of the
| committee will soon change hands as Khan has been a great
| advocate for fair contracts between companies and consumers
| during her tenure.
| mentalgear wrote:
| Indeed, Khan has been the first real pro-public steward of the
| FTC for decades.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| As a free market fan, Khan seems to have been pretty terrible.
|
| But _this_ looks genuinely good! It 's basically banning fraud.
|
| ---[EDIT], since everyone is asking for reasons here are two
| libertarian/conservative critiques:
|
| * https://reason.com/2024/11/07/good-riddance-lina-khan/
|
| * https://archive.ph/IjNmZ
| m_ke wrote:
| Please name some of the terrible parts
|
| EDIT: to make it easier here's a list of actions from
| perplexity:
|
| Here are more explicit actions taken by the FTC under Lina
| Khan's leadership:
|
| Lawsuit against Amazon (2023): The FTC filed a landmark
| antitrust case accusing Amazon of monopolistic practices in
| its online marketplace and Prime subscription service.
|
| Meta (Facebook) lawsuit (2023): The FTC sued Meta to block
| its acquisition of virtual reality app maker Within
| Unlimited, citing concerns about monopolization in the VR
| market.
|
| Microsoft-Activision merger challenge (2023): The FTC
| attempted to block Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of
| Activision Blizzard, though it ultimately failed.
|
| Kroger-Albertsons merger: A U.S. district court judge ruled
| in favor of the FTC to block the proposed $25 billion merger
| between these two major supermarket chains
|
| Nvidia's acquisition of Arm: The FTC sued to block this
| merger, though it's not explicitly mentioned in the search
| results
|
| Amazon's acquisition of iRobot: While not explicitly
| mentioned in the search results, this is another high-profile
| merger that the FTC has challenged under Khan's leadership.
|
| Enforcement against data brokers (2022-2023): The FTC took
| action against several data brokers for selling precise
| geolocation data that could be used to track people's
| movements.
|
| Zoom settlement (2021): The FTC finalized a settlement with
| Zoom over allegations of deceptive security practices.
|
| Right to Repair initiative (2021): Khan's FTC unanimously
| voted to ramp up law enforcement against repair restrictions
| that prevent small businesses, workers, and consumers from
| fixing their own products.
|
| Made in USA labeling rule (2021): The FTC finalized a new
| rule cracking down on marketers who make false, unqualified
| claims that their products are Made in the USA.
|
| Penalties for fake reviews (2022): The FTC imposed multi-
| million dollar penalties on companies for using fake reviews
| and suppressing negative reviews.
|
| Action against "dark patterns" (2021-2023): The FTC has taken
| action against companies using deceptive design practices
| known as "dark patterns" to trick consumers.
|
| Increased use of Penalty Offense Authority: The FTC has
| revived its Penalty Offense Authority to seek civil penalties
| for violations of FTC administrative orders.
|
| Ban on hidden junk fees: The FTC announced a rule requiring
| companies to show full prices for items like hotel rooms,
| concert tickets, and sporting events upfront, rather than
| hiding fees until the end of the checkout process
|
| Changes to merger review process: The FTC has altered
| principles, practices, and policies of merger review that had
| been in place for decades
|
| Expanded scope of enforcement: The FTC has taken a more
| holistic approach to identifying harms affecting workers,
| independent businesses, and consumers, with a focus on
| addressing power asymmetries and unlawful practices
|
| Rulemaking changes: Chair Khan has orchestrated wholesale
| changes in FTC rulemaking practices and policies
|
| Proposed ban on noncompete clauses: The FTC has proposed
| banning noncompete clauses in employer agreements
|
| Increased focus on data privacy: The FTC has sued multiple
| companies for allegedly sharing customer data and warned
| about the "hidden impacts" of advertising tools like third-
| party tracking pixels
| chrisweekly wrote:
| That's a pretty good list of things the FTC deserves credit
| for, in my book.
| m_ke wrote:
| Literally the best government person we have had for
| competitive markets in decades
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| What do you mean? Minimising monopolies is how you keep the
| free market competitive.
| diob wrote:
| I hope they reply. This is the first FTC in a while to try
| and get the free market "free" again, rather than captured.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| 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
| being unsportsmanlike. As it should be in the marketplace.
| But hackers and the EU and US bureaucrats think that being
| a leader in a market has to be punished for being a
| "monopoly". While always turning a blind eye to rampant
| fraud and scams that are in the marketplace everywhere
| online and offline.
| nabla9 wrote:
| As a pro-market fan, Khan is great.
|
| Pro-market: pro-market advocates for policies that enhance
| competition and market efficiency. Understands that god
| markets are made. Pro-market advocates believe in creating
| conditions where businesses can compete fairly without undue
| advantages from government favoritism. Government regulation
| can be essential to correct market failures and promote a
| level playing field.
|
| Free market: and ideological stance where markets are without
| government intervention. Belief in ideal world where market
| failures don't exist and if they exists that's a good thing.
| nickff wrote:
| Why do you describe "free market" as being ideological, and
| "pro-market" without those terms? Both seem equally
| ideological (or not).
| qeternity wrote:
| Because they are against one and for the other. Pro
| markets means whatever policies they agree with, which is
| of course how all broken highly regulated markets begin
| their run.
| sdwr wrote:
| Idealist: "the free market is perfect!"
|
| Realist: "the free market has flaws, which can be
| addressed by..."
|
| Replace "free market" with anything you like
| gizmo wrote:
| Everything is ideology to some extent, but not everything
| is ideological to the same degree. The beliefs that a
| level playing field is good and that winning by means of
| political favoritism is bad are almost universally agreed
| on. Almost all political philosophies, including various
| shades of socialism and communism, agree that markets are
| needed to some degree if only for price discovery.
| theossuary wrote:
| Republicans have made the term ideological a negative
| one. Sure, the dictionary definition is to relate to
| ideology; but in practice (especially when talking
| politics) it implies one is picking a worse option
| because it aligns with their ideology. So their claim
| above is one is picking free markets due to ideology,
| whereas another would pick pro markets because it's
| actually the best solution.
| LinXitoW wrote:
| I mean, I agree that Khan is the best possible option, but
| I disagree that pro-market isn't ideological.
|
| Where the free market fans see child slavery and sexual
| slavery and rejoice (free to make any contract you want to
| after all), the pro market people believe that if you just
| put enough guard rails on it, greed will magically turn
| into a force for good.
|
| Obviously I also have an ideology, but at least I'm honest
| enough to not pretend that capitalism (or
| communism/anarchy) are naturally occuring, instead of
| simply a choice we make.
| kylecazar wrote:
| Personally, I think she's for the free market. She is
| progressive, which is controversial, but I don't really see
| why non-billionaires run to the defense of big tech when
| their monopolistic status is scrutinized.
|
| I totally understand why billionaires do, on the other hand.
| Worth watching Reid Hoffman embarrass himself on Jake Tapper
| on the subject of Khan recently for those interested
| Gigachad wrote:
| HN is full of people who think they will one day be the
| billionaires scamming people.
| r00fus wrote:
| Free markets - you know freedom isn't free right? You have to
| enforce it - and you do this by regulation.
| websap wrote:
| Khan has been absolutely spectacular for the free markets.
| Transparency in pricing (with this law), transparency in
| cancellation of subscriptions, blocking acquisitions where
| businesses should fail.
|
| The free market shouldn't allow monopolies, or duopolies to
| form. Bad businesses should fail, not absorb more capital and
| continue scaling.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > Khan seems to have been pretty terrible
|
| to the contrary, she's great for free, competitive markets
|
| she's just not good for winner-take-all M&A investors, and
| _that_ is a good thing
|
| the average American - and even the average investor - will
| not benefit from her departure
| mentalgear wrote:
| Now waiting for a webapp that autoscans your bill for junk fees
| and can report them to the FTC.
| pianoben wrote:
| ...for the next four weeks, anyways. Good effort nonetheless!
| guidedlight wrote:
| They should ban hidden taxes too. The sticker price should be the
| final price.
| drdec wrote:
| Do you want to put in your shipping address to every website
| before you can shop?
| munk-a wrote:
| Yea, that'd be pretty swell. The only reason websites moved
| away from that was to "lower friction" - it's better for the
| consumers who end up buying the product if they know
| availability and pricing up front.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| _The only reason websites moved away from that was to
| "lower friction"_
|
| It was never the norm that websites never asked for your
| shipping address or zipcode before allowing shopping.
| That's really silly.
| munk-a wrote:
| My statement was overly general and that's a fair
| criticism - however I do remember e-commerce in the early
| days of the web. That early web experience for me was
| that generally users were required to make an account
| (mostly to verify age and ability to pay) before they
| could interact with items or create a shopping cart. In
| that era the interaction of sales taxes and the internet
| were much more complicated and shipping times and costs
| much more variable. I know that when my father was buying
| train books he'd often need to go to conventions in other
| states to pick up items in person because sellers were
| afraid of getting scammed out of their shipping fees.
| perfectstorm wrote:
| a reverse IP lookup should give you a good estimate and you
| can always ask the user to enter their address for more
| accurate price.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| Surely this is outdated advice in the world of "Protect
| your privacy with NordVPN" all over youtube.
| briandear wrote:
| Nope. I hate when website use IP for anything, especially
| language selection. I travel all the time as well as use
| VPNs for work, and the idea that my IP represents anything
| other than what network I'm connecting from is just lazy
| UX.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Do you often order things for delivery at home while
| you're travelling? Then the price will change when you
| provide the delivery address -- just like it does now.
|
| Meanwhile, 99% of people will see the price they can
| expect to pay.
| ghaff wrote:
| Yeah, I see a lot of advice on here that websites should
| make some guesses and you can always correct them later
| if it turns out they're wrong.
|
| That seems like terrible advice. Oh, the price is $X. And
| once you've entered all your info "just kidding." I'd
| much rather know there are some things not included up-
| front if they're not reasonably factored in.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Yes let's keep a shitty UX for most users because of a
| few abnormal users. Be honest, frequent travel and
| shopping over VPN is an edge case here. The vast majority
| of users are shopping and buying from home with a VPN.
|
| Or better yet, give municipalities an incentive to stop
| layering a kinds of taxes. Just have a VAT and be done
| with it.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Be honest, frequent travel and shopping over VPN is an
| edge case here._
|
| Everyone is an edge case in some form. You, included.
|
| _Just have a VAT and be done with it._
|
| This just illustrates that you don't understand the that
| taxes have multiple purposes, and why taxes are the way
| they are. Attend a few city council meetings.
| alistairSH wrote:
| I understand why we levy taxes. I'm not a moron (or a
| jerk). Other countries manage with a much simpler tax
| scheme; we can try and do the same.
| ghaff wrote:
| Amazon in particular probably did a lot to normalize free (in
| country) shipping in many cases. But it's silly that there
| should be a sticker price that is the final price under all
| circumstances.
|
| Mind you, I'm all for more up-front transparency in general,
| especially to the degree that comparison-shopping is
| inconsistent to the degree it displays or doesn't display
| often significant add-ons.
| poorlyknit wrote:
| A zipcode should be plenty and grocery websites do that
| already.
| itake wrote:
| Unfortunately, there are 13 zip codes that span across
| multiple states.
| kaonwarb wrote:
| Even within a state a single 5-digit ZIP can have multiple
| tax rates if it spans multiple cities; true where I live.
| runako wrote:
| ZIP codes are not specific enough.
|
| In some areas, sales tax is actual multiple taxes from
| different overlapping jurisdictions: state, county, city,
| and sometimes special tax district. ZIP codes don't align
| with any of these, so you need to know exactly where the
| buyer is in order to properly calculate sales tax.
|
| There are places where adjacent addresses in the same ZIP
| code have different sales tax rates.
| syndicatedjelly wrote:
| The zip code I live in spans two different cities (as well
| as different counties in my state). It's stupid but also
| it's reality
| reaperducer wrote:
| _A zipcode should be plenty and grocery websites do that
| already._
|
| There's probably a Things Developers Believe About ZIP
| Codes list out there somewhere.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| Very easy, we can get inspiration from the web shops 10 years
| ago (and still a majority of honest sites today) : the price
| of the item and somewhere close the base shipping price and a
| (legal minimum size) link "shipping price" redirecting to a
| shipping price table. We can even impose the table framework
| like the nutritional information on food to avoid volontary
| complexification of that page.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| At which point they'll just segment the market based on zip
| code and once the ecommerce platforms and big sites start
| doing it it'll become the norm
|
| Good for me, my zipcode is the Walmart of zip codes. No so
| good for people who's zip code is the Whole Foods of zip
| codes.
| connicpu wrote:
| The new rule does have clarification that they at least have to
| show you the final price with taxes+shipping before they're
| allowed to take your credit card. Those ones I get, because
| they can't be calculated without knowing your billing zip code.
| yoyoyo1122 wrote:
| > The sticker price should be the final price.
|
| God I wish this applied to buying cars as well
| kstrauser wrote:
| If you're assertive enough, it is.
|
| "Oh, sorry, looks like we'd already applied the undercoat to
| your car."
|
| "Ah, thanks!"
|
| "That's an extra $400 charge."
|
| "I'm not paying for it. I didn't want it. You can have it
| back if you want."
| syndicatedjelly wrote:
| "Darn, sorry we can't make a deal. Hey look at all the
| people who need cars that are waiting!"
|
| This is not as much of an upper hand as you think it is,
| often these shenanigans happen after sitting at the dealer
| for a couple hours while they do whatever it is they do. Do
| you value your time so little that you'll just walk out of
| a transaction over less than a 1% difference in cost?
|
| The dealer knows how to play this game way better than you,
| if you walk into a dealership without having a plan to
| score a deal then you already lost
| kstrauser wrote:
| Yes, I have literally done exactly that thing and ended
| up with the dealer eating the price. The dealer has time
| and effort sunk into closing the deal, too, and they'll
| almost always chose a bird in the hand.
|
| And also-freaking-lutely would I walk instead of eating a
| BS charge. Sometimes it really is the principle of the
| thing. My principle is I'm not paying a penny for
| something I didn't ask for. A dealership I'd be caught
| dead doing business with will eat the bogus charges
| instead of losing a customer forever. Conversely, next
| time I need a Toyota, I have the business card of the guy
| I'll buy it from and he doesn't even know it yet. He
| treated me well last time and his investment in that deal
| will keep paying him back.
| floxy wrote:
| Amazon Autos?
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Autos/b?node=10677469011
| bradgessler wrote:
| Rules for thee but not for me.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| 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.
| belfalas wrote:
| _> 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._
|
| I visited Japan some years back and loved this aspect of the
| culture as well. An Australian ski guide (this was a winter
| visit) explained it like so: "the Japanese attitude is to
| want to do a good job by default. Tipping implies that a good
| job is only done because of pay. The Japanese see quality
| service as intrinsically valuable in itself."
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I believe that servers are also paid quite well.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| That's fantasy. The same thing is true in China. All it
| means is that the local culture doesn't tip.
| sofixa wrote:
| > The price on the tag, is exactly what you pay (same with
| services, like hotels).
|
| That's the norm, not the exception, in developed countries.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| Except for the one with the largest economy.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| And Canada!
| sofixa wrote:
| And that's not a point of pride now, is it. If you're the
| best but others are clearly beating you in a few
| categories, that's more reasons to improve to try to be
| the best everywhere, not put your hands in your ears and
| pretend nothing is wrong.
| floxy wrote:
| No sales tax in Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and
| Oregon.
| olddustytrail wrote:
| Congratulations on living in a country where there are
| many people who are vastly richer than you.
| crazygringo wrote:
| No -- it's the norm in countries that have a single uniform
| VAT.
|
| It's obviously not the norm in countries that have sales
| taxes which vary by locality.
|
| Whether a country is "developed" or not has nothing to do
| with it. The vast majority of countries in Africa have a
| VAT, while the world's richest country has a sales tax.
| sofixa wrote:
| > It's obviously not the norm in countries that have
| sales taxes which vary by locality
|
| Why not? If each store or restaurant or theatre or
| whatever in each locality know what price to bill you,
| they know the applicable price to show you upfront.
|
| > Whether a country is "developed" or not has nothing to
| do with it. The vast majority of countries in Africa have
| a VAT, while the world's richest country has a sales tax.
|
| The relevance of developed or not is how much of the
| economy is informal or includes a part of negotiation.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _Why not? If each store in each locality know what
| price to bill you, they know the applicable price to show
| you upfront._
|
| Because it makes state-level or national-level
| advertising of prices impossible. Or even local-level in
| many cases.
|
| > _The relevance of developed or not is how much of the
| economy is informal or includes a part of negotiation._
|
| No it doesn't, where are you getting that? Feel free to
| browse:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country
|
| and Ctrl+F for "informal" or "negotiation". There are a
| lot of indicators of developing vs developed countries,
| but your idea is most assuredly not one of them. Also,
| sales tax vs VAT has nothing to do with an informal
| economy or price negotiation either.
| sofixa wrote:
| > Because it makes state-level or national-level
| advertising of prices impossible. Or even local-level in
| many cases
|
| Hardly impossible, just slightly less easy ("available
| for $X* (pre-tax)" / "starting at $X").
|
| And are seriously claiming that ease for advertisers
| takes precedence over ease of use and pricing
| transparency for consumers?
|
| > and Ctrl+F for "informal" or "negotiation". There are a
| lot of indicators of developing vs developed countries,
| but your idea is most assuredly not one of them. Also,
| sales tax vs VAT has nothing to do with an informal
| economy or price negotiation either.
|
| Thank you. What I meant was that the only reason it
| _might_ not be the standard in some developing countries
| is that they _might_ have more informal economies with
| more negotiations involved. Literally the only legitimate
| excuse. But when that 's not the case, from Morocco to
| Sri Lanka to Uzbekistan, price is shown upfront,
| everything included.
| mattlondon wrote:
| Same in UK.
|
| As a kid, having grown up in the UK I knew that if the price
| label said PS1.99 and I had PS2 in my pocket I could afford
| it, with PS0.01 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.
| xenospn wrote:
| The price part is essentially the same all over the world
| except for America, where you're not entirely sure how much
| more you'll have to add for taxes and tips.
| thenickdude wrote:
| Except 100 yen stores which are actually 110 yen stores.
| robotfelix wrote:
| I'm not sure Japan is the best example here. My experience is
| that most shops have the price excluding consumption tax
| printed very prominently in large numbers, and then price
| including consumption tax is printed in much smaller writing
| underneath.
|
| The price excluding tax is the only one you can read at a
| distance, that draws you in. As someone from the UK who is
| used to seeing price tags show the final price you pay at the
| till, I was constantly disappointed that items weren't quite
| such a bargain as I'd first hoped.
|
| On the whole there are still many things that are much
| cheaper than in the UK though :)
| crazygringo wrote:
| If you're talking about sales taxes, they can't until you input
| your shipping address. Because they depend on where you live.
|
| Nobody's trying to fool you by not including sales taxes.
| There's just no way to show them in advance, unless you want to
| start typing your address and zip code into every shopping
| website before you even browse.
| Symbiote wrote:
| In the EU, the site guesses the location based on the IP,
| writes "Delivery to Denmark [Change?]" and shows prices with
| Danish VAT.
|
| If I'm signed in to the shop from making a previous purchase,
| they will use the location of the previous purchase.
| qeternity wrote:
| Yes bc in the EU there is national VAT. In the US there is
| state _and_ local sales tax. You can and will pay different
| sales tax between cities in a given state.
| emidln wrote:
| You can do this, albeit slightly less reliably, in the US
| as well. The geolocation isn't perfect, but you could
| easily put "With delivery to XXXXX [edit]" where XXXXX is
| a zip code you geolocate off an ip (or lookup in a user
| profile for a recurring user).
| ssl-3 wrote:
| If Denmark has just one sales tax rate or VAT, then maybe
| that can work OK for Denmark.
|
| But this isn't about Denmark -- it is about the US.
|
| In the US, there are over 13,000 different sales tax
| jurisdictions, and each one of them may have a different
| tax rate.
|
| I wish the best to anyone who would ever be tasked with
| sorting that out with any semblance of accuracy using IP
| geolocation databases.
| websap wrote:
| Yes, because my IP address doesn't give them a way to
| calculate tentative taxes? My IP can be used to serve me ads,
| but not serve me actually relevant information?
|
| There's a very small % of traffic that actually uses VPNs
| crazygringo wrote:
| Correct, it doesn't. IP geolocation is nowhere near precise
| enough.
|
| Remember, sales tax isn't something big like state-level.
| It's literally _town_ -level, including tiny towns. Two
| sides of the same street can have a different sales tax.
|
| Not to mention all the extra rules, such as individual
| clothing items under $110 being exempt in New York.
| websap wrote:
| I will take the blurb which says taxes are an approximate
| calculation based on web browsing data available, vs, no
| taxes shown. We're gate keeping good features for large %
| of users over some edge cases.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Gate keeping what?
|
| You know where you live, you know what your local sales
| tax is. The current system works fine.
| Alupis wrote:
| Or, just get rid of sales tax anyway. It is the 2nd or
| 3rd time the same money has been taxed, depending on how
| you view it, and it's pretty ridiculous that a person
| with $100 in their bank account (post-taxes) still does
| not have the equivalent of $100 of purchasing power.
| mulmen wrote:
| So currently they correctly advertise the pre-tax price
| but since that's not the correct total price your
| proposal is to display an approximate price which is also
| not the correct total price. I don't see how this reduces
| ambiguity.
| websap wrote:
| A higher price is more accurate than the pretax price
| mulmen wrote:
| [delayed]
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| It somehow works almost anywhere outside of NA? It's
| really not a crazy concept - estimate it based on
| geolocation and say "more exact will be available once
| you enter your address". The problem is, that genuinely
| negatively affect the sales because people see the true
| price of things.
| mulmen wrote:
| > It somehow works almost anywhere outside of NA?
|
| Is North America unique in allowing local municipalities
| to set their own taxes?
|
| > It's really not a crazy concept - estimate it based on
| geolocation and say "more exact will be available once
| you enter your address".
|
| That's exactly what happens now, except the advertised
| price is actually correct instead of an "estimate". I
| have an intuitive sense for local tax. How can I know
| what method was used to compute this estimated price?
| websap wrote:
| I've been working at FAANG for the past 10 years, so this
| made me absolutely chuckle!
|
| I can totally image a PM somewhere calculate the negative
| bps for this and call the experiment a failure!
| HelloMcFly wrote:
| > 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 quoted price will likely
| change during checkout, when we see the final price after
| we enter our address.
|
| So we make things more complicated for vendors, and we
| make it not just acceptable but required that vendors use
| our IP addresses for geolocation, only to give us a
| maybe-right-maybe-wrong final price. Does anyone feel
| scammed by not having tax included on the price in the
| listings of Macy's online store?
| ewoodrich wrote:
| Yep, where I currently live based on IP geolocation I
| would be quoted incorrect state sales tax 100% of the
| time. Though it's sort of the perfect geography to be
| problematic (Vancouver, WA side of the greater Portland,
| OR metro area spanning a sales tax/no sales tax state
| boundary).
| trustinmenowpls wrote:
| Yup, I know what sales tax is in my state and can do the math
| in my head pretty easily to get the approx. amount. If you
| live in a state for any length of time you should be able to
| do this too. even if its something odd like 7.25% you can
| figure out what 10% is really quickly and know it'll be a
| little less than that.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'm not sure who these presumably tech-adjacent folks are
| who can't look at a posted price, know something about the
| tax/tipping/etc. conventions are, and know about what the
| final bill will be.
|
| That said, I DO agree that hidden facility/resort/etc. fees
| and the like should go. For years, there was a conference
| center restoration fee tacked onto hotels all over NYC even
| the project wasn't even approved. Rental cars at airports
| are also a nightmare. There is no reason for them.
| diehunde wrote:
| Right, but even when they do have your zipcode (because you
| added beforehand for checking stock for example) they don't
| update the prices. It would be nice to have the option
| kaonwarb wrote:
| The one upside I'm aware of for taxes being added separately is
| high awareness of what the sales tax rate is.
| petsfed wrote:
| I'm more ok with "hidden" taxes, because the business is
| supposed to just hand that over. If they're putting something
| on the receipt that says "tax" and its not associated with an
| actual government-applied tax, that's just fraud., we don't
| need special rules to address that (yet). Its not hidden in an
| attempt to trick you into buying something at a higher cost.
| Its hidden because calculating the taxes requires additional
| information from the user.
| conductr wrote:
| Hidden and not yet calculated are different things. They should
| just make a broad and sweeping stances on these hidden fees.
| The fact they play whack-a-mole from implementing this from
| industry to industry as the 'need' arises seems silly. If a
| price is advertised or quoted, it should be inclusive all the
| things with tax being the one exception.
| legitster wrote:
| Seems like a no brainer. Can they tackle sales tax next?
| itake wrote:
| and service fees at restaurants. The price on the menu in
| Seattle or SF is ~25% lower than what the product actually
| costs.
| hamandcheese wrote:
| California was set to ban that, until Scott Weiner carved out
| an exception for restaurants.
| sedatk wrote:
| His name sounds exactly like someone who'd sabotage a
| public benefit.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| Yeah, I love that healthcare surcharge at SFO restaurants.
| itake wrote:
| Healthcare surcharge: 6%
|
| tip: 20%
|
| tax: 8.625%
|
| = total: 34.625%
| zten wrote:
| The healthcare surcharge is taxable, because it shouldn't
| exist, it should just be a 6% increase in the menu price.
| trustinmenowpls wrote:
| what is a healthcare surcharge?
| zten wrote:
| SF has something called Healthy SF where employers have
| to offer health insurance plans, or pay into a city-
| managed health account. I think the last time I looked,
| for a lot of businesses, it's basically a $2.25/hr raise
| for your employees.
|
| edit: The best part is, if your employees don't use the
| money (maybe they don't know about it or don't have any
| health care expenses), the business can eventually
| reclaim it...
|
| The restaurant association balked at this, and encouraged
| businesses to list out the increased cost as a separate
| line item on the receipt, instead of raising menu prices,
| basically raising a middle finger and saying "see what
| you idiots voted for, now you pay for it!" I don't know
| why I'd be mad that I have to pay for someone's health
| care. That's sort of how it works, doesn't it?
|
| Since then, it has taken on a life of its own. Some
| places call it a health care surcharge. Others call it a
| SF surcharge, or a cost adjustment, or inflation fee.
| It's not a tax, it's not a service charge, it's not
| anything but whatever arbitrary number the business wants
| to charge without raising their menu price. And thus,
| it's taxable.
| coldpie wrote:
| Minnesota banned these this year! It goes into effect Jan
| 1st. https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/05/20/governor-signs-
| junk...
| physhster wrote:
| Imagine if that guy became VP...
| coldpie wrote:
| We have a very nice little island of sanity up here :)
| kstrauser wrote:
| Count the service charge toward what you would've tipped.
|
| Wait staff reading this: bosses at restaurants like this are
| stealing from you if that doesn't go straight to you. I tip
| very well, but I'm not tipping twice. And yes, if it's a
| "service charge", that's the same as saying "tip" from the
| customer's perspective.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| 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)
| caseyohara wrote:
| Not likely; sales tax is extremely complicated in the US. There
| are 13,000 sales tax jurisdictions, and many of them have
| different and incompatible rules for things like sales tax
| nexus.
| cyberax wrote:
| A business already has to take care of the sales tax. So they
| can just show it on the price tag.
| bluGill wrote:
| No they cannot. Taxes are not uniform. Walmart probably
| won't deal with this, but in many states business (read
| farmers) do not pay sales tax on some items (read likely to
| be used on a farm) and so stores that want to sell to
| business will have the ability to verify you are a business
| to give that discount.
|
| It is worse for online where until you log in they have no
| clue what taxes will apply. If you are buying a gift for
| someone in a different area I don't know what tax rules
| apply but there is good odds they won't know until you get
| to the shipping information what the real taxes are.
| cyberax wrote:
| If you sell a widget in a store, you MUST be able to
| compute the sales tax. Otherwise, you can't sell it.
|
| And if you can do that, then you might as well print it
| on the price tag (along with pre-tax price if you want).
| No buts.
|
| Ditto for online, after you get the customer's ZIP code.
| fn-mote wrote:
| The issue with online sales is real, but customers exempt
| from sales tax could just have their final price lowered.
| That would be the opposite of the current situation.
| Since there are many fewer tax-exempt sales, and tax-
| exempt buyers are presumably more sophisticated and less
| price-sensitive, this would be a net win for customers.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| I think legitster is suggesting that the sticker price on the
| product should be the price paid, rather than a uniform sales
| tax code. If the seller knows what to charge the buyer, then
| they know what they need to put on the sticker.
| runako wrote:
| Local retailers would oppose this in very strong terms as a
| thumb on the scale in favor of online retailers.
|
| Online retailers would presumably still be able to show
| pricing before knowing a shipping address, so their pricing
| would be pre-tax. That would make the apparent price
| differential even greater, and on every item.
|
| I think this would make the marketplace less clear for
| consumers.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| Online retailers could be required to use the best
| available estimate of the user's location to calculate
| the tax.
|
| So if they are logged in with an address on file, it
| could be that. If not, they could use geolocation, with a
| note that the tax is estimated. And let the user input a
| location in a box to show the exact tax.
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| Move to Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire or Oregon. No
| sales tax.
| m463 wrote:
| most states have some trick.
|
| I think you have to look at it wholistically:
|
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Median_h.
| ..
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Not a trick, just they get their income from other sources
| / taxes. But we're specifically talking about knowing the
| final price you will pay, in advance, which requires
| knowing the sales tax.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| That's a state matter so not really within the FTC's
| jurisdiction I think.
|
| Luckily some states (OR, AK, others) don't have a sales tax.
| nirav72 wrote:
| Wonder if this going to be permanent or will be reverted as soon
| as the new FTC head is in office.
| munk-a wrote:
| Time will tell - the change I'm really hoping will stick is the
| outlawing of non-competes without consideration.
| delecti wrote:
| I would not be hopeful. From AP news:
|
| > Four of the FTC's five commissioners voted to approve the
| rule. Commissioner Andrew Ferguson, - who is President-elect
| Donald Trump's choice to replace Khan, was the one dissenting
| vote.
|
| https://apnews.com/article/ftc-junk-fees-rule-hotels-
| tickets...
| hnburnsy wrote:
| One republican commissioner voted with the rule, and
| Ferguson dissented based on lame duck rule making, not the
| merits, while agreeing that the FTC rule making was valid
| for businesses like tickets and short term lodging.
| Cornbilly wrote:
| That's a moronic dissent. It's either valid or not, lame
| duck or no.
|
| Edit: The full decent reads like choosing fealty to Trump
| over good rule making.
| https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ferguson-
| junk-f...
| ghaff wrote:
| A lot of people probably weigh this too much. Forcing
| companies to have some skin in the game is good. But, in
| practice, if a company really wants to enforce a non-compete
| --even with consideration--it's probably not great unless
| you're in a position and want to take a sabbatical with
| substantially reduced compensation.
| munk-a wrote:
| This is absolutely true and when I read my first non-
| compete my dad calmly explained how unenforceable they are
| due to hardship exceptions and lack of specificity.
| However, I had a very business minded father to ask and
| most people don't. Non-competes have been abused to scare
| uninformed employees into staying in positions they want to
| leave or as revenge for someone leaving.
|
| The fact that they're so often unenforceable is probably a
| decent argument that they're an irrelevant complication of
| labor interactions that we don't need anyways. They only
| ever made sense with executives and those folks usually
| have large sums of money attached to their compliance.
| ghaff wrote:
| The few months when I actually had a non-compete in place
| it was quite specific and didn't apply to me.
|
| But, yeah, as a generic thing below the level of a CEO
| becoming the CEO of a direct competitor (in which case
| lawyers have presumably put specific contracts in place
| if they're competent), they don't make a lot of sense
| beyond NDAs in play. No properly-managed company was ever
| going to pay me a bunch of money to not work at a random
| company in the industry who was probably a partner
| anyway.
| dhosek wrote:
| Come January 21st, expect junk fees to explode. But don't
| worry, as long as you make at least $10,000,000 per year,
| you'll get a huge tax cut.
| spockz wrote:
| Im all for this. I'm worried though that now the junk fees will
| just be added to the normal price without ultimately changing
| anything.
| eterm wrote:
| That does change things though, it gives you a fair point of
| comparison.
| munk-a wrote:
| And that comparison is important - when junk fees are allowed
| more honest companies suffer because consumers might shop
| around and end up choosing the option that is actually more
| expensive. Those consumers might be on page 12/13 of a form
| and just accept the fee to avoid the hassle - or they may
| assume everyone (including what looked like a more expensive
| competitor) is baking the fees in late in the process and not
| bother investigating deeper.
|
| Hidden fees create market inequities.
| adra wrote:
| No, the reason they tack on the fee as a "tax" is literally to
| confuse and otherwise mislead the public to the true cost of
| the product they're buying, or mislead where the money is
| directed. they're buying from. If you believe in the Tennant's
| of capitalism at all, then you must have clear price
| representation.
| smaccona wrote:
| Nitpick: "tenets"
| morkalork wrote:
| Isn't Airbnb a good example of this? In some locations you
| have to open each listing to get the true price and it's a
| huge waste of time. In locations, what you see on the map is
| the real value, cleaning and other, fees included.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I mean, they will be, but that's the point. No more surprises.
| You can actually compare prices without going through checkout
| first.
| quotemstr wrote:
| Market actors are allowed to charge whatever they want. Price
| controls are super bad. It's not the role of the state to
| mandate a specific price. It is the role of the state to make
| sure prices are fair and transparent. Deception cannot be
| tolerated in an efficient market.
| bluGill wrote:
| I wish sales taxes would be added - some cities charge very
| large taxes on hotel rooms and so it might be worth staying in
| a hotel not far away with more reasonable taxes.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Official release: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-
| releases/2024/12/...
|
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42441347)
| arrowleaf wrote:
| Great! My wife was reading me ticket prices for an event on
| Ticketmaster yesterday, I kept telling her she needs to add them
| to the cart and start checkout to know the real price. She did
| just that and to my surprise the price didn't change at all!
| YaBa wrote:
| Now do the same with airline companies. WizzAir charges the crap
| out of you for everything they can. Do not fly with WizzAir!
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| A significant difference here is that the airline fees are
| ostensibly optional. You could, in theory, fly Spirit with
| nothing except the clothes on your back and they wouldn't
| charge you extra. But with event ticket sales and the like,
| there is often no possible way to avoid the fees. That means
| there's a much stronger argument for requiring that the fees be
| rolled into the price.
| Symbiote wrote:
| A recent WizzAir flight was advertised (when I searched for the
| route on their website) for EUR21. I rejected all optional
| extras, and that was the total price I paid.
|
| No checked luggage, probably only a small cabin bag that fitted
| under the seat in front, no priority boarding, no seat
| selection.
|
| It's a budget service, but the advertised prices aren't
| deceptive.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| That's not in the US so unaffected.
| dchichkov wrote:
| I wish that "Online Coupon Price Tags" in stores would also be
| banned. I'm talking about these yellow price tags that show lower
| than "Club" prices, which are only valid if you collect a coupon
| online.
|
| Like FTC, I estimate that banning these would save U.S. consumers
| millions of hours they currently spend searching and clicking on
| pointless coupons on their phones before making purchases. It
| would also increase happiness, as it's extremely annoying to pay
| $20 extra, knowing that a lower price is available if only you
| spent ten minutes struggling with a store's website on your
| phone.
|
| Whoever invented this is evil and is destroying happiness.
| floxy wrote:
| >I'm talking about these yellow price tags that show lower than
| "Club" prices, which are only valid if you collect a coupon
| online.
|
| Which store is that with the yellow price tags?
| dchichkov wrote:
| Safeway, Walgreens.
| Liquix wrote:
| those tags are working as intended - some people don't read the
| "online only" part, grab the item, assume the discount is
| applied at checkout, and end up paying full price. other people
| will download (and probably never uninstall) the spyware app
| and start feeding a juicy profitable data stream back to HQ.
|
| because how are you ever going to stay in business doing
| something as niche as selling groceries without leaning hard
| into surveillance capitalism
| dchichkov wrote:
| Whoever invented this is evil and is destroying happiness.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I'm glad (if it doesn't get reversed by the next administration).
|
| But I'm also baffled... how did this take _this long?_
|
| Why wasn't it done way back when they did it for airline tickets,
| in 2012?
| bluGill wrote:
| Because details matter and are hard. If you don't get the
| details just right a court will strike the whole thing down for
| good reason.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Not sure about going all the way back to 2012, but maybe they
| were more worried about the Mayan calendar? /s
|
| But as far as under this administration, it seems like it took
| half the term to right the ship and get the leadership moving
| in the right direction. I think a second term would have been
| impressive.
| OptionOfT wrote:
| I'd be interested to see whether a movie theater is considered an
| event. Our local one charges a convenience fee when buying online
| because ... they can?
|
| I wish they banned all mandatory add-ons. If I don't have the
| choice it should be part of the base price.
|
| The touristic railroad near me advertises a price, and then slaps
| on a mandatory Fuel Surcharge and Historic Preservation Fee.
|
| Excuse me? How can I compare what I'm going to spend my money on
| if you're just allowed to lie to me?
|
| Sidenote on fuel cost:
|
| Fuel is almost back to pre-COVID costs
| https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=e...
|
| and once you add in inflation it's even cheaper.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > How can I compare what I'm going to spend my money on if
| you're just allowed to lie to me?
|
| You're not supposed to, that's the point. It's frankly shocking
| (and also not, but you know) how much businesses in America are
| allowed to bullshit you.
|
| I signed on with a telco for high speed internet when we bought
| our house for $65 a month and by the time we got fiber and I
| could finally tell them to kick rocks, the bill had soared to
| nearly $200 for the exact same service over the course of 4
| years. Why? Because they can, and go fuck yourself.
|
| A hotel stay for a vacation was supposed to cost $851, but they
| demanded a $300 pre-authorization on top of that. Why? Because
| they can. I wasn't notified ahead of time, absolutely nowhere
| was this information given to me. And I could take that on
| fine, but why is this allowed? What if I wasn't so fortunate
| and was traveling by air, do I just sleep in a box because the
| hotel can't guarantee I'll be able to pay for $300 worth of
| room service I have no intention of buying?
|
| I feel like this just happens everywhere now, I just expect it.
| I expect to get fucked over in one way or another, and on the
| one hand I'm sure it's my anxiety, but on the other hand there
| is so much expensive arbitrary nonsense that's just plunked
| down in front of me, and yeah, most of it I can handle fine,
| because I work in tech and make good wages. So I guess just
| fuck everyone who grew up at the income level I got, because I
| am fucking sure that my single mother trying her hardest as she
| was, wouldn't be able to get by if I was born like 15-20 years
| later than I was.
|
| Edit: Oh and FUCK every politician who has ever farted out
| words something like "responsible consumption of healthcare"
| because sweet Jesus, healthcare billing is an utter nightmare.
| I don't think I have EVER, EVER in my entire life had some kind
| of medical event where I knew the costs going in that were then
| reflected afterwards. It's just all made the fuck up on the fly
| with no respect for the patients, when they are already
| stressed out and scared.
| currymj wrote:
| 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.
| user3939382 wrote:
| Hopefully this does away with the fraudulent "cleaning fee" when
| you book a hotel for $200 and then get a charge for $450.
| bluGill wrote:
| Maybe. If they document how dirty the room was after you leave,
| and how clean it was before hand they can get away with this.
| Generally smoke smell is the only thing they would bother doing
| this for though. If you just leave the normal mess behind they
| shouldn't be charging extra.
| user3939382 wrote:
| Yeah I'm talking about an existing practice where the fee
| applies to all bookings and is just a way to fraudulently
| advertise the booking price.
| a13o wrote:
| It's a start. I'm bummed at how narrowly scoped this is. When the
| RFC period was open I wrote in to highlight how apartments charge
| surprise pet rent fees that don't appear until the application
| process.
| benreesman wrote:
| Lina Khan is my second hero in life after Evariste Galois.
|
| Even if they throw her out it won't change what she's done: she
| put fear in the bellies of some truly terrible people who had
| almost forgot what the word "restraint" means.
|
| Ms Khan, I salute you.
| dheera wrote:
| Can we be done with "resort fees" and "taxes" as well? Hotel
| prices should include all of this
| coderjames wrote:
| > The rule would require service fees, resort fees, and other
| charges commonly added to bookings to be included in advertised
| prices.
|
| Sounds like that's what will be happening if the rule sticks.
| trustinmenowpls wrote:
| I need this for my internet provider, advertised price is $25* **
| ***
|
| Network access fee: $2.65
|
| Municipal upgrade fee: $16.30
|
| Fees end up costing nearly 80% of the entire bill. There are no
| taxes or gov surcharges of any kind.
|
| *(with autopay discount)
|
| **(with autopay direct deposit discount)
|
| ***(will not be reflected on first 3 bills)
|
| ETA: here's their current promotion:
| https://i.imgur.com/TfwsdQv.png $20 for service, $20.49 in fees!
| fees are 102% of the supposed price!
| breadwinner wrote:
| My Internet provider charges $50 per month exactly, and even
| the taxes are included! How cool is that? They aren't doing
| that out of goodness of their heart though. It is due to
| competition from T-Mobile 5G internet, which also has this
| policy.
| fn-mote wrote:
| Agreed. The FCC should act even more broadly. Why doesn't it?
| quotemstr wrote:
| Even the most fundamentalist of free market fundamentalists
| should be cheering transparency in pricing. The price signal
| works best when it's not obfuscated.
| breadwinner wrote:
| 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 time is over 45 minutes. There is no call back
| option. Why should a consumer have to be on the phone for 45
| minutes to cancel? (Typically they will drop the call after 45
| minutes and you have to call again.) If you call Dish to sign up
| service the wait time is 0 minutes: they answer immediately. If
| you then tell that you're actually calling to cancel, they
| forward you to the cancellation number with the wait. This is an
| abusive business practice, and banning it should not be
| controversial.
| LoganDark wrote:
| 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.
| breadwinner wrote:
| But then that becomes unpaid bills and they send you to
| collections.
| sudoshred wrote:
| You can dispute debt in collections by requesting proof of
| the debt. The consumer protections in that area (debt
| collections) are quite a bit more developed than any
| consumer protections about intentional procedural
| inefficiency when cancelling service.
| xenospn wrote:
| Simple anecdote, but when I paid a medical bill and they
| still came after me and sent it to collections, I contested
| the bill and told the collection agency that this is not my
| debt. Never heard from them again.
| danaris wrote:
| You can _probably_ avoid this--or, rather, cover your ass
| legally--by doing something like sending them a letter
| registered mail informing them that you are cancelling and
| will be blocking further payments.
|
| It's far from a good solution, but it should at least put
| you in a better position vis-a-vis the courts if it comes
| to that.
| dboreham wrote:
| Only in America
| drewg123 wrote:
| Dish is terrible. After my mom passed away, they were one of
| the few things that my Dad had trouble cancelling. Even with a
| copy of her death certificate, my Dad could not get the service
| cancelled. He just ended up throwing the bills (and their
| equipment) away.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| 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.
| Centigonal wrote:
| 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.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > banning it should not be controversial
|
| for many people, any kind of regulation that restricts
| companies abilities to make money, regardless of the
| consequences for average citizen, is "wasteful and discourages
| innovation". Elon would like to get rid of the FTC altogether
| for that reason, as well as the Consumer Financial Protection
| Bureau, which was set up to help protect users from scammy
| behavior like this.
|
| so yeah, don't hold your breath for the next 4 years (or longer
| if Elon manages to buy the next election too)
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I'm told you can just write the account number to cancel on a
| brick and throw it through their window. Might be worth a try.
| seatac76 wrote:
| Would love to see what gymnastics the incoming FTC head uses to
| undo this rule.
| coderjames wrote:
| Do restaurant service fees next! "Here's the bill, with a 10%
| service fee added so we can pay our staff more without raising
| menu prices."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-17 23:00 UTC)