NYC To Become First In US To Ban Deceptive Subscription Practices (theguardian.com) 36
On October 1st, New York City will become the first U.S. city to ban deceptive subscription practices, requiring companies to offer simple cancellation options or face fines of $525 per user subscription, back fees, and additional penalties. The Mamdani administration is also proposing a junk-fee rule requiring sellers, landlords, hotels, and other businesses to "advertise the total price for any good or service, including all mandatory additional charges and fees, up front." The Guardian reports: "People shouldn't have to wait on hold for half an hour or send a certified letter or show up to a store in person in order to cancel" a subscription, said Samuel AA Levine, the city's commissioner of consumer and worker protection, in an interview. The new measures are expected to be announced in a press conference on Friday morning.
The proposed fee rule could have an especially wide impact, sending ripples through New York's expensive housing market, where about 70% of residents rent. Apartment renters in the US face a rising tide of add-on fees such as "boiler management" and "lifestyle" charges from management companies, which make true rental costs hundreds of dollars higher than the price stated on real-estate company websites.
If the proposed renters rule passes after public comment and hearing, any mandatory fees, including annual ones, would need to be included in the stated monthly rental price, Levine said. The current situation creates "a scenario where rather than competing on price, companies are competing on their ability to hide the true price. That's the worst kind of incentive" -- and one that deeply distorts the market, Levine said.
The proposed fee rule could have an especially wide impact, sending ripples through New York's expensive housing market, where about 70% of residents rent. Apartment renters in the US face a rising tide of add-on fees such as "boiler management" and "lifestyle" charges from management companies, which make true rental costs hundreds of dollars higher than the price stated on real-estate company websites.
If the proposed renters rule passes after public comment and hearing, any mandatory fees, including annual ones, would need to be included in the stated monthly rental price, Levine said. The current situation creates "a scenario where rather than competing on price, companies are competing on their ability to hide the true price. That's the worst kind of incentive" -- and one that deeply distorts the market, Levine said.
Didn't The FTC Do This Two years ago? (Score:2, Troll)
https://www.ftc.gov/news-event... [ftc.gov]
What does NYC add that isn't already present?
Re:Didn't The FTC Do This Two years ago? (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.ftc.gov/news-event... [ftc.gov]
What does NYC add that isn't already present?
The FTC's rule was struck down by the courts, and the current administration is apparently disinclined to continue to pursue deception advertising and to force click-to-cancel requirements.
Re: (Score:3)
Besides this, the NYC rule seems to cover rental agreements, which the FTC rule did not cover, to my knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
The NYC ruling is about any form of price based marketing/advertising.. (which means contracts, paper/print (which real estate ads often are)).. basically if you are advertising a price, it had better be close to the actual man
Re:Didn't The FTC Do This Two years ago? (Score:5, Informative)
Also to be extra clear the 8th circuit struck it down for procedure, the FTC was supposed to have done a certain type of economic impact analysis for the rule and it could not go into effect before that happened. The court did not actually make a ruling on the rule itself and in fact were sympathetic to what the law was trying to do.
The FTC can re-implement the rule after that analysis is complete and it can go through the process after that but with the current admin they have chosen not to and generally Republicans were opposed to the rule.
If Lina Khan was still at FTC I imagine it would have been done but Sarah Ferguson who voted against the rule initially now runs it. But both parties are the same of course.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Re:Didn't The FTC Do This Two years ago? (Score:5, Informative)
Republicans gutted all authority from federal agencies because it made the mega corps unhappy.
Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
So it turns out politicians can pass legislation that helps people.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Finally a real populist.
He sure is getting MAGA panties in bunches.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Mamdani has been doing a lot of it.
Of course, it was too hard for the "other" politicians because they were being paid off. Mamdani ran on a platform that those other politicians were describing as something that would destroy the state.
Re: (Score:2)
So it turns out politicians can pass legislation that helps people.
Uh huh.
The No-Robocall Chapter of the American Association of Breath Holders cordially invites you to their next invitational. You may expect an email invite from the Nigerian Embassy, which will naturally manage to make it through your CAN-SPAM filter..
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Mamdani hasn't been in long but has already
- Froze rent for 2 million New Yorkers
- Cut subway fares in half for low-income riders
- Fully funded NYC parks
- Added $680M for public schools
- Launched free child care for 2-year-olds
All things that we were assured were impossible, would crash the economy, would bankrupt the state etc. Oh, and he balanced the budget.
Politicians absolutely can help the people they are supposed to work for. Socialism absolutely does work. It's just that it works for you, not billion
Agree and next let's do deceptive taxes (Score:2)
Same requirement for listing the taxes paid in a retail purchase, not just sales tax, but the largest taxes paid by the vendor, real estate tax, etc.
It's too bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
...that it's just New York City. Hopefully the idea will spread.
Laissez faire capitalism is great if everyone is honest. But in this reality there are a lot of incredibly dishonest people who will do anything for a buck. A modicum of base regulation is desirable to keep consumers from getting swindled at every turn. I applaud efforts like these.
Re: It's too bad... (Score:2)
It's a nice way to look at it. Another is that laissez-faire capitalism fosters and rewards dishonesty.
Re: (Score:2)
If the leaders don't want to hear the truth, or want the power to defraud and abuse, their servants will act accordingly. The problem is, their servants, the mega-corporations, have control over most of the services and buildings required by the working class. The mega-corporations direct their fraud and abuse at their customers, plus the open-end contracts and no-bid contracts and no-audit contracts with government departments.
Sounds good (Score:5, Insightful)
More people should probably feel worse... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Under socialism, they don't permit all these add-on fees and services. It's all bundled together. With your food.
You did want food, didn't you? Welcome to your city-owned supermarket. [cloudfront.net]
Re: (Score:2)
It's also not really a catch-22 since, if it weren't for the tolerance of grotesque levels of regulatory capture, any 'capitalist' regulator would take ensuring high quality price signals really seriously.
The part that should upset people is that the 'capitalists' are so far into bed with actively anti-market rent seekers that you can't rely
As it should be - but there needs to be more... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
'Free' should have no strings attached.
They should not be permitted to say something is 'Free' if they require you to pay for shipping.
Re: (Score:2)
When phone ringtones were the latest thing in the early 2000s, there were online subscription services for them, promising "
Re: (Score:2)
Based on your logic, then Facebook, Google, and a whole host of "free" services that essentially sell "you" should be banned (which for the record, I'm not exactly opposed to) In short.. Free (in the court of law) has always meant monetary cost, not social impact cost. And I don''t think anyone wants to pull that thread.
hospitals will just say doctor not included doctor (Score:2)
hospitals will just say doctor not included doctors are independent.
Re: hospitals will just say doctor not included do (Score:2)
Only if we let the free market sort out healthcare. Which we really shouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
That would have to be approved by the courts. It could go either way.
New York Jets and New York Giants are safe to tick (Score:2)
New York Jets and New York Giants are safe to ticket master fee you as they don't play in NY
Will taxes and "tips" be included? (Score:2)
In other civilised countries, if the lunch menu says $20, you pay $20. You don't need to bring an accountant with you.
How is it that in the US, gas stations and liquor stores can post honest prices, but IIRC, nobody else did?
Re: Will taxes and "tips" be included? (Score:2)
It's worse than that. I remember buying a jacket in the US and the employees were unable to tell me the actual price (after taxes). So not only is the price incorrect, you also can't get the correct price before having to pay. Sure you can always change your mind at that stage, but that's beside the point. Give me the price so I can decide if I want to buy it.
tiping is an USA thing but the other hidden fees? (Score:2)
tiping is an USA thing but the other hidden fees?
hotel resort fees need to go (Score:2)
hotel resort fees need to go
The US does not have that in general? (Score:2)
The mind boggles. Does explain why so many Americans do not seem to get the CRA and the DAS in the EU, because these are _advanced_ forms of consumer protections. If you do not even have basic ones ...
What's a .. (Score:2)