Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Businesses

FTC Orders Ticket Sellers, Hotels To Show 'All-in' Prices Upfront (ftc.gov) 76

Posted by msmash from the about-time dept.
The Federal Trade Commission unveiled a sweeping rule on Tuesday to crack down on hidden fees in ticket sales and hotel bookings, marking a major push by the agency to combat what it calls "junk fees" that cost consumers billions of dollars annually.

The bipartisan measure requires businesses to display the total price, including all mandatory fees, upfront when advertising tickets for live events or short-term lodging. The rule aims to end the practice of surprising customers with additional charges like "resort," "convenience," or "service" fees late in the booking process.

"People deserve to know up-front what they're being asked to pay," said FTC Chair Lina Khan, who estimates the rule could save consumers up to 53 million hours per year in comparison shopping time, equivalent to $11 billion over a decade.

The rule, approved by a 4-1 commission vote, does not ban any specific fees but requires clear disclosure before consumers enter payment information. It will take effect 120 days after publication in the Federal Register. The measure follows a lengthy public comment period that drew over 72,000 responses and represents one of the FTC's most significant consumer protection actions in recent years.

FTC Orders Ticket Sellers, Hotels To Show 'All-in' Prices Upfront More | Reply

FTC Orders Ticket Sellers, Hotels To Show 'All-in' Prices Upfront

Comments Filter:

  • about time (Score:4, Informative)

    by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Tuesday December 17, 2024 @09:43AM (#65019215) Homepage

    About time.

    These fees are literally bait and switch: they tell you one price, and then when you go to pay they charge you another.

    • Yeah, this is long overdue. I'm tired of seeing "$39 a night" hotel deals in Las Vegas, only to find out that it's more like $100 a night once you add the resort fee, parking fee, and various hotel taxes.

      • There are ways to get rooms for $0 and parking $0 with some play.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        The rule does say mandatory fees. I assume since the need for Parking service the rule would not apply to a parking fee. I know if I'm going to Vegas for a night then I most likely would not be bringing a car, so naturally I would not need to buy parking services.

        • The rule does say mandatory fees.

          LoL. You have never ever stepped foot in a Las Vegas casino.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mysidia ( 191772 )

            Sure I have no interest in casinos or stepping in one anywhere; let alone Las Vegas. But how is that relevant?

            We were discussing fees, and how the companies will get around the rule, since Parking is a service you won't need with a Hotel - i'd be hiring a Lyft to take me around, thus no car, and therefore, no parking fee. It doesn't count as one of the mandatory services, since you can get there without checking in a car at the valet

            • thus no car, and therefore, no parking fee.

              Again, you have never been in Las Vegas and charged a parking fee without consent or even having a car in the state of nevada.

              Casino's con people out of their money, the front desk of said Casino is no different.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by xevioso ( 598654 )

            Why would you bring a car? You fly into Vegas, get a shuttle to your hotel, stay there, gamble, and maybe check out some other hotels on the strip, and then fly out again.

            • Lots of people who go to Vegas live within driving range and don't want to fly. Some of them go there for weeks at a time. Tell us you're not familiar with the casino going demographic without telling us.

              • I'm sure that there are plenty of people who do drive there. If there weren't, they wouldn't have all of the parking garages. However, I suspect that if you were to look at the total number of people who pass through Vegas or the casinos that the majority don't have a vehicle. The sheer volume of people walking the strip each day suggest this is the case and if even 10% of them had a car, they required parking would more than double in my estimate. Forget building a hyperloop, because they only place they c

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by torkus ( 1133985 )

          Careful with that assumption. The 'resort fee' hotels claim cover "pool and gym etc." apply even if you don't use any of those things.

          "I'm sorry Sir, but the parking fee is mandatory since a parking spot is allocated to each unit even if you don't use it.'

          It's all nonsense and garbage fees which only serve to willfully hide the price of goods from consumers. Of all the dumb things the FTC does, this is a rare sensical decision..

        • Mandatory in this case does not mean legally mandated, as junk fees are typically not that. It is, not surprisingly, targeted at things you don't want to pay for, but will be added to your bill regardless. Parking may or may not be one of those things, depending if you have a choice or not.
    • I'm nto sure its going to fix that at all. From the summary: requires clear disclosure before consumers enter payment information. That would mean they can still display $100/night, and then before you enter your payment details, show you a summary with resort fee...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pascoea ( 968200 )
        Baby steps. It won't fix the advertising, you're still going to see "$100*/night" signs all over the place, but at least now they have to tell you what the "*" means before you get your card out of your wallet. There's a big mental step between clicking "check out" and clicking "complete purchase". I feel as though once people have pumped in their credit card they are less likely to be scared away by a bunch of fees. You're less invested in the transaction if you haven't put your card in yet, and more likel

      • I'm nto sure its going to fix that at all. From the summary: requires clear disclosure before consumers enter payment information. That would mean they can still display $100/night, and then before you enter your payment details, show you a summary with resort fee...

        Comparison shopping is much more practical without the payment step.

    • About time.

      These fees are literally bait and switch: they tell you one price, and then when you go to pay they charge you another.

      Yay! Just before a new administration, which will be run by a cadre of billionaires, hungry to get rid of consumer protections -- as well as social safety nets.

  • That one guy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Tuesday December 17, 2024 @09:47AM (#65019235) Homepage

    I like there is one guy who is like "Fuck that, hiding fee's is good for the consumer"

    • The one guy's dissent basically boils down to "I don't necessarily disagree with the ruling, but Biden shouldn't be passing stuff right before he leaves office.". Sounds almost like he supports it but probably wants to wait so that Trump can get the credit for it.

      • To be fair, the most important part of government is not doing what is best for america, but getting credit for it.

        It's better to let americans suffer so you can get credit for fixing it when your party is in office. Bonus if you can make the problem while your party is not in office by stonewalling the party that is.

        • True. Like the desperately needed immigration and border reform provisions hashed out by Congress but delayed almost a year because of politics. How many more deaths were caused by the delay. Both by drugs crossing the border and people dying in the attempt.
          Gotta say to Biden, what took you so long to start the Auto-deny of you cross illegally?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        This isn't Biden's work, anyways. It is work by the FTC. The president at most gets credit for appointing good people to the commission, but after the appointment - whether the results are good or bad depends entirely on the commissioners.

        • This isn't Biden's work, anyways. It is work by the FTC. The president at most gets credit for appointing good people to the commission, but after the appointment - whether the results are good or bad depends entirely on the commissioners.

          Can you guess who appointed the current majority at the FTC? Hint, it wasn't Trump.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Calydor ( 739835 )

        Is Biden the current president, yes or no? Why does the date of his resignation as president matter in regards to what he does while he is still president?

      • The one guy's dissent basically boils down to "I don't necessarily disagree with the ruling, but Biden shouldn't be passing stuff right before he leaves office.". Sounds almost like he supports it but probably wants to wait so that Trump can get the credit for it.

        LoL, one brib....political donation to Trump and it will be removed and made illegal to disclose fees upfront.

    • This is a violation of the rights of corporations, which are just like people! They have a right to free speech which permits them to put any price they want on the sign and then charge you as much as they want!

      That one guy is making this very argument without any sense of irony

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pascoea ( 968200 )
      There's one Libertarian on the board. The "no rule is a good rule" type. Doesn't matter if it's better for society on the whole, if the government is forcing them to do it it it's a bad thing.

    • makeing the base rate lower pulls people in and after they half away or more into the sale then you hit them with the fees. At the point where some don't back out.

  • When I was there on holiday I remember the prices in shops weren't what you pay, either. They add tax on afterwards. Madness.

    • Yeah, US shops have to do that, in part as taxes vary from state to state (and sometimes community within a state) whereas MSRP are manufacturer specified. It's also legacy as there used to be price stickers which couldn't as readily be changed to match new tax laws for older inventory. Nowadays of course this has changed both with pricing guns and now electronic price signs.

      There's also situations where untaxed items like clothing are taxed over certain values (luxury instead of poor necessity), which de

      • Yeah, US shops have to do that, in part as taxes vary from state to state (and sometimes community within a state)

        Of course they don't have to advertise the before-tax price. They only choose to because, for chain stores and mail-order stores, it's easier and cheaper to do it that way than to advertise different prices individually to each tax district.

        And then mom-and-pop stores that don't sell across tax districts do the same so they don't seem more expensive than the chains. If anyone is being forced to

        • To answer the question, nope, couldn't care less, was just providing context info.
          The biggest negative impact of my half century on this topic was spending time writing these comments about it.

    • I believe the reason for tax being separate is not just the retailers loving a lower price on the sticker, but to make it clear to the consumer how much of a cut the government is taking.

      I'd prefer a two-number system, with the sticker showing total amount and then the tax on brackets after. But hiding the tax just helps the politicians crank up the taxes with less pushback from consumers.

    • Re:Isn't this what all your shops do, too? (Score:4, Informative)

      by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Tuesday December 17, 2024 @10:54AM (#65019443)

      In this case the Tax is a fee imposed by the local government which they are required to collect on behalf of the government. The tax is not part of the price of goods - It's an additional amount that the law requires you to pay.

    • It's a controversial opinion, but I think that adding sales separate charge at the end of the transaction is the right way to do it purely for the sake of transparency.

      Americans universally understand that they're paying sales tax - usually in the 6-8% range. The European model, where VAT is included in the price, allows obfuscation of the fact that 20-25% of your bill at the shop is taxation. Maybe if consumers were more directly confronted with that reality there'd be the political will for a discussi

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by spitzak ( 4019 )

        A store is perfectly within their rights to display a sign saying what percentage of the price is taxes, or even split it up into how much goes to various things like defense or welfare. They can also split up how much goes to employees or rent or heat. I want to know what the total amount of money I will lose in exchange for the item and I really don't care where it goes for my purchasing decision. It also seems like competition between municipalities could be an incentive to lower taxes.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pascoea ( 968200 )

        It's a controversial opinion, but I think that adding sales separate charge at the end of the transaction is the right way to do it purely for the sake of transparency.

        There's nothing really controversial about that. I don't mind knowing what fees and taxes are included in the price. That being said, not disclosing what those fees are until I've already handed over my credit card is bullshit. There's no reason those taxes and fees can't be detailed out on the "sticker" price, especially true when it's crap that's "made up" by the seller.

  • Now do retail (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Apotekaren ( 904220 ) on Tuesday December 17, 2024 @10:17AM (#65019333)

    This is a big improvement.
    Now make retail establishments show prices with taxes before you go to pay.
    It makes no sense that I have to know the what local state/city/county sales taxes are, that's the job of the store I'm in.

    If I see the same product for cheaper across the street I should NEVER end up paying more because of a city limit between the stores.

    Hidding taxes and fees until you go to pay is anti-consumer.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mysidia ( 191772 )

      It makes no sense that I have to know the what local state/city/county sales taxes are, that's the job of the store I'm in.

      No.. It's in fact the customer's job. Sure is inconvenient, but there is notice of the tax by reading your state and city laws. Also, the buyer is a party who can be arrested or held fully liable if the sales tax was not remitted. The Law is that the customer is required to the the tax, and the retailer is required to collect the tax (unless you the customer provide paperwork

      • I don't believe it's correct that the police could arrest you outside of the store for failure unpaid sales tax. If a retailer fails to charge you sales tax, you are supposed to pay it as part of your annual tax filing. You're not required to resolve the situation while at the store.
    • Ignorance of applicable tax is not an excuse. But I do agree that tack-on 'fees' should be treated as simple Fraud.
    • You are responsible for knowing the state/city/county taxes where you live. In most jurisdictions, if you buy something outside of where you live (i.e. you go to the next county because the sales tax is lower), you're responsible for knowing that you paid less in tax than you would have in your home jurisdiction and remitting the difference as part of your annual tax filing. Every jurisdiction has a "sales" tax for things *purchased* in the jurisdiction and a *use* tax for things purchased in other jurisd

    • I see sales taxes as a less problematic issue, since they generally apply equally across the board, and are generally less than 10%. These hotel and ticket fees can easily be equal to the list price itself, and are often totally discretionary (not government imposed).

  • Transparency in general is important to me. I hate getting excited by a price for something and then the slap of fees making that price get higher and higher and it feels manipulative. How bad do you want that $100 thing now that it is $120-$150+ I try and factor it in before the emotions of wanting lock in, but damn, make it simple. Iâ(TM)ve got enough other stuff in my head. Companies that focus primarily on the bottom line know the game well and are learning to play it better and better. Thank yo

  • does not ban any specific fees but requires clear disclosure before consumers enter payment information

    To my knowledge, none of these sites add fees after you enter payment information. It's often a screen or two away from the listed price, sometimes nestled snugly in with the "checkout" button, but it's never, like, go to checkout and then inform you of the fees. To make an observable difference, this rule would have to apply to whenever the price is actually listed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mysidia ( 191772 )

      To my knowledge, none of these sites add fees after you enter payment information. It's often a screen or two away from the listed price

      Yeah.. The real issue is that the initial advertising is bogus. Extra fees not shown by the time of payment are not common.

      Unless it's extra costs at the check-in desk required to enter despite the fact that you are already have fully paid a ticket or booking in advance.

      "Oh.. You have a cell phone? Sorry, no cell phones past this point. You can pay us $20 to rent a

    • This is true for ticket sales, but not necessarily hotels. Your card isn't usually charged until you get to the hotel (or they bill you as a no-show) With ticket sellers, it has to be at least somewhat prominent at checkout because you are authorizing a card payment of a certain amount. But with hotels, giving credit card information is used to reserve the room, it's not a billing, and it's very easy to not fully see/understand the resort fees. Some hotels offer a discount for pre-payment where you will

  • This will be Loper Bright'ed into oblivion.

  • From CNBC:

    President-elect Donald Trump could seek to withdraw the rule for further review, and Republicans who will have control of Congress could seek to vacate it by law.

  • I recently bought tickets for a Dweezil Zappa show. Base price for a 2nd row ticket was $75. Ok, I can afford that. But there was sales tax. Then they tacked on a $17 service charge. Then they wanted you to down load an app for your phone to hold the ticket. But I don't put closed source, privacy invading apps with unknown security on my phone, so $10 more to pick them up at will-call or $20 more to have them mailed.

    Total for a $75 ticket was $108.39. Bastards.

    Vented about it to my daughter. Turns out

Slashdot Top Deals

"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid" -- the artificial person, from _Aliens_

Close