3 ms·
While perhaps slightly misleading (hence the lawsuit they settled), nothing says it has to be specifically earmarked for anything... at the end of the day it wa
by chrismeller 7y ago
While perhaps slightly misleading (hence the lawsuit they settled), nothing says it has to be specifically earmarked for anything... at the end of the day it was in the company’s bank account either way and could end up being used for anything, even if they had actually claimed it was specifically for one particular thing ahead of time.
And maybe, just maybe, they had plans and did eventually use it for all the things they said, but didn’t have a particular program in place yet? I really just feel like this is trying too hard to look for something clearly nefarious when it’s just not there.
- geogriffin 7y ago> nothing says it has to be specifically earmarked for anything Lawsuits in the US about deceptive fees like [1] come to mind. [1] https://blog.ticketmaster.com/schlesinger-v-ticketmaster/ https://blog.ticketmaster.com/schlesinger-v-ticketmaster/
- chrismeller 7y agoSure, but as I said they already settled a lawsuit over the deceptiveness. So arguably that complaint is already out the window...
- geogriffin 7y agoTrue, and it seems as though to avoid this kind of litigation Ticketmaster simply had to disclose more information about the purpose and intent of the fees in the fine print. I also remember them changing the name "processing fee" to "convenience charge" maybe 10 years ago as result of (maybe this) lawsuit, but I can't find anything about that now.
- admax88q 7y ago> I really just feel like this is trying too hard to look for something clearly nefarious Whereas I feel like you're trying too hard to look for a reason why Uber is not in the wrong.