4 ms·

It's crazy that California is doing this at all. And it's crazy they "fix" this same bug over and over for different types of businesses. Is this just so politi

by boxed 2y ago

It's crazy that California is doing this at all. And it's crazy they "fix" this same bug over and over for different types of businesses. Is this just so politicians can be seen doing something? This should be covered very clearly by the existing federal laws against fraud. Because that's what this is. If you say "10 dollars" and then after they say "11 dollars" when it's time to pay, that's just fraud.

addicted 2y ago
I mean it clearly isn’t covered under current definitions of fraud so lawmakers need to act on them. If there’s one thing the U.S. is good at it’s suing people and organizations. If this was such a clear case of fraud there’d be a phalanx of lawyers making millions suing the tens of thousands of restaurants in the country.
- boxed 2y ago
  They're not acting on it though. They're fake-acting on it.
gruez 2y ago
>This should be covered very clearly by the existing federal laws against fraud. Because that's what this is. If you say "10 dollars" and then after they say "11 dollars" when it's time to pay, that's just fraud. Except it's not as straightforward as this. There's usually some fine print at the bottom that says there's a 20% service charge, taxes not included, or whatever.
- dboreham 2y ago
  Also fraud.
  - gruez 2y ago
    You might think it's fraud, but that's irrelevant unless you're also able to convince a judge. What's the precedence on this sort of stuff?
    - mihaic 2y ago
      Why do you need a precedent to pass a law that improves the situation for every consumer and doesn't harm anyone dishonest?
      - gruez 2y ago
        >Why do you need a precedent to pass a law that [...] When did I say that? I only claimed that having additional fees that are disclosed in fine print doesn't meet the legal definition of fraud, and that some rando calling it "fraud" doesn't make it so. That says nothing about whether I support California's SB 478, and in fact if you check my other comments I actually support it.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Different words have different definitions. Annoying and burdensome is not the same as fraud. You can want to be free of both without conflating them.
    - boxed 2y ago
      I mean.. if a judge can't see this then yea you have a big problem. Which the US does.
- mihaic 2y ago
  Why are you tolerant to fine print being in absolutely everything, and people needing to do math to know how much a candy bar costs before reaching the checkout counter? Regulation that protects the consumer while simply asking that the final price is displayed anywhere shouldn't really be controversial, it just seems that in the US these tricks by retailers have been so widespread that it's now normalized.
  - frumper 2y ago
    I feel like you misread his explanation of why it's not fraud as an endorsement for how things work. He doesn't seem to imply support anywhere in his statement. Aside from that, this law would not eliminate the need to do math. The sales tax would still be added. Despite "the price you see is the price you pay" slogan, it excludes certain government taxes and shipping fees. That exclusion includes sales tax.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      Our reliance on "the letter of the law" rather than the spirit of it, giving rise to all these little loopholes in everything, are just another thing that makes living the USA so frustrating. "See, it's not fraud! It's just evil, and we're allowed to do evil if we disclose it in 4 point text!" I'm sure the next decade will be full of litigation to decide what counts as a "restaurant" and what counts as an "add-on fee" and every business owner is just going to try to skate on by with the status quo using technicalities and acksuallys.
      - frumper 2y ago
        If you think the above poster's statement doesn't adequately justify that it isn't fraud, then you should respond to him. My statement simply stated that he didn't express support one way or the other for fees, and that even if the law is passed it wouldn't do what the parent wanted.
    - mihaic 2y ago
      You're right, I did conflate endorsement with if this actually is fraud, my bad. Probably the core of the disagreement here is different definitions of "fraud". For me personally, information that is misrepresented and hides behind the mask of an unreasonable amount of work to be correctly understood is a form of fraud, and I know others don't share that definition.
- DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
  > Except it's not as straightforward as this. There's usually some fine print at the bottom that says there's a 20% service charge, taxes not included, or whatever. The point is to forbid the fine print. I dislike many German laws around taxation and stuff but one thing we're doing right here is that all consumer-facing prices must be final. You can give a rebate if you want but you cannot charge a surplus. Prices as displayed must include VAT and any service fees, period. It's annoying that for some reason airlines do not seem to be bound to this, but the vast majority of businesses are. And I don't see the problem. It's so unfriendly when you put this and this and this in your cart / on your table and then when comes the time to pay, jumps a henchman out of the bush and demands some more. Where in the world does that translate into consumer satisfaction?
frumper 2y ago
Fraud could be telling them their total is $12.75 and without disclosure charging their card $12.85.
hedora 2y ago
Some cities in California require the surcharge be added to the menu prices. I wish California had a second viable political party. (Not the California GOP, to be clear.)
- frumper 2y ago
  Just curious which cities require it.
- manuelabeledo 2y ago
  Wait, are you saying that some cities don't even require to undisclose these fees? How is that remotely legal?
gnicholas 2y ago
I can understand when you’re ordering in-person and it’s printed clearly on the menu. But I’ve seen it in very small print on a sign near the register, which you can’t read until you’ve waited in line and reached the front of the line. And it’s certainly not OK when you phone in an order based on website pricing. The worst I’ve seen is at a bookstore where there’s no sign — just a line item at the bottom of the receipt.
viraptor 2y ago
There's a general difference in approach between the US and many other countries, where for example the EU will try to build a framework ahead of time, but the US waits for a specific thing to go bad enough to be worth regulating. So on one side you get broad imperfect documents that people like to make fun of here (EU regulation for AI), on the other you get constant hole plugging for obvious problems (like here).
- Tor3 2y ago
  Not really in this case. In the past it was not a law everywhere (in Europe) that pricing must include taxes, and you could often get the "added tax" surprise. This was then regulated to make it illegal. It's just that the US seems to take longer to get around to fix things.

by boxed 2y ago

addicted 2y ago

I mean it clearly isn’t covered under current definitions of fraud so lawmakers need to act on them. If there’s one thing the U.S. is good at it’s suing people and organizations. If this was such a clear case of fraud there’d be a phalanx of lawyers making millions suing the tens of thousands of restaurants in the country.

boxed 2y ago
They're not acting on it though. They're fake-acting on it.

gruez 2y ago

>This should be covered very clearly by the existing federal laws against fraud. Because that's what this is. If you say "10 dollars" and then after they say "11 dollars" when it's time to pay, that's just fraud. Except it's not as straightforward as this. There's usually some fine print at the bottom that says there's a 20% service charge, taxes not included, or whatever.

dboreham 2y ago
Also fraud.
- gruez 2y ago
  You might think it's fraud, but that's irrelevant unless you're also able to convince a judge. What's the precedence on this sort of stuff?
  - mihaic 2y ago
    Why do you need a precedent to pass a law that improves the situation for every consumer and doesn't harm anyone dishonest?
    - gruez 2y ago
      >Why do you need a precedent to pass a law that [...] When did I say that? I only claimed that having additional fees that are disclosed in fine print doesn't meet the legal definition of fraud, and that some rando calling it "fraud" doesn't make it so. That says nothing about whether I support California's SB 478, and in fact if you check my other comments I actually support it.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Different words have different definitions. Annoying and burdensome is not the same as fraud. You can want to be free of both without conflating them.
  - boxed 2y ago
    I mean.. if a judge can't see this then yea you have a big problem. Which the US does.
mihaic 2y ago
Why are you tolerant to fine print being in absolutely everything, and people needing to do math to know how much a candy bar costs before reaching the checkout counter? Regulation that protects the consumer while simply asking that the final price is displayed anywhere shouldn't really be controversial, it just seems that in the US these tricks by retailers have been so widespread that it's now normalized.
- frumper 2y ago
  I feel like you misread his explanation of why it's not fraud as an endorsement for how things work. He doesn't seem to imply support anywhere in his statement. Aside from that, this law would not eliminate the need to do math. The sales tax would still be added. Despite "the price you see is the price you pay" slogan, it excludes certain government taxes and shipping fees. That exclusion includes sales tax.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    Our reliance on "the letter of the law" rather than the spirit of it, giving rise to all these little loopholes in everything, are just another thing that makes living the USA so frustrating. "See, it's not fraud! It's just evil, and we're allowed to do evil if we disclose it in 4 point text!" I'm sure the next decade will be full of litigation to decide what counts as a "restaurant" and what counts as an "add-on fee" and every business owner is just going to try to skate on by with the status quo using technicalities and acksuallys.
    - frumper 2y ago
      If you think the above poster's statement doesn't adequately justify that it isn't fraud, then you should respond to him. My statement simply stated that he didn't express support one way or the other for fees, and that even if the law is passed it wouldn't do what the parent wanted.
  - mihaic 2y ago
    You're right, I did conflate endorsement with if this actually is fraud, my bad. Probably the core of the disagreement here is different definitions of "fraud". For me personally, information that is misrepresented and hides behind the mask of an unreasonable amount of work to be correctly understood is a form of fraud, and I know others don't share that definition.
DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
> Except it's not as straightforward as this. There's usually some fine print at the bottom that says there's a 20% service charge, taxes not included, or whatever. The point is to forbid the fine print. I dislike many German laws around taxation and stuff but one thing we're doing right here is that all consumer-facing prices must be final. You can give a rebate if you want but you cannot charge a surplus. Prices as displayed must include VAT and any service fees, period. It's annoying that for some reason airlines do not seem to be bound to this, but the vast majority of businesses are. And I don't see the problem. It's so unfriendly when you put this and this and this in your cart / on your table and then when comes the time to pay, jumps a henchman out of the bush and demands some more. Where in the world does that translate into consumer satisfaction?

frumper 2y ago

Fraud could be telling them their total is $12.75 and without disclosure charging their card $12.85.

hedora 2y ago

Some cities in California require the surcharge be added to the menu prices. I wish California had a second viable political party. (Not the California GOP, to be clear.)

frumper 2y ago
Just curious which cities require it.
manuelabeledo 2y ago
Wait, are you saying that some cities don't even require to undisclose these fees? How is that remotely legal?

gnicholas 2y ago

I can understand when you’re ordering in-person and it’s printed clearly on the menu. But I’ve seen it in very small print on a sign near the register, which you can’t read until you’ve waited in line and reached the front of the line. And it’s certainly not OK when you phone in an order based on website pricing. The worst I’ve seen is at a bookstore where there’s no sign — just a line item at the bottom of the receipt.

viraptor 2y ago

There's a general difference in approach between the US and many other countries, where for example the EU will try to build a framework ahead of time, but the US waits for a specific thing to go bad enough to be worth regulating. So on one side you get broad imperfect documents that people like to make fun of here (EU regulation for AI), on the other you get constant hole plugging for obvious problems (like here).

Tor3 2y ago
Not really in this case. In the past it was not a law everywhere (in Europe) that pricing must include taxes, and you could often get the "added tax" surprise. This was then regulated to make it illegal. It's just that the US seems to take longer to get around to fix things.