7 ms·

Small claims court. Just depends on your time value of money. Or willingness to screw with them for gigs.

• grugagag 2y ago
  I was too busy to fight it off, initially called my CC and put stop on charges. Eventually they got my money.
  • busterarm 2y ago
    Reminds me of the time I made the mistake of booking a Hertz rental through Expedia. My rental started on a daylight savings time changeover. _Hertz_ messed up the rental dates on their end of the transaction (by multiple days, even) and would not allow me to modify or cancel the rental. I ended up disputing the charge with Expedia via an AmEx chargeback and lost. AmEx owns 10% of Expedia.
  • mbesto 2y ago
    This is a huge feature of CCs that most people don't recognize. You're paying an extra ~3% to credit card companies in exchange for the ability to dispute a charge. If a merchant (in this case Hertz) accepted cash, you would get an invoice in your hand that you could dispute on the spot and just simply not pay. The reverse would be true for Hertz who could try to sue you for not complying.
    • reaperman 2y ago
      They'd end up doing something like you pay $2000 in cash upfront and then you get the unused portion back at the end, and GDP would lower significantly because most people can't afford to give businesses a line of credit like this.
      • mbesto 2y ago
        There'd be no market for $2000 cash upfront.
    • pests 2y ago
      But then don't you get that back as cashback and such? Most complaints are people who don't pay with CC are paying a premium.
      • mbesto 2y ago
        > But then don't you get that back as cashback and such? Huh? You mean in the example scenario if I charge $500 for a car rental and get 2% cashback from my CC. I find out the car rental is charging me an extra $100 for gas that I never used. I'd complain because I'd lose out on the 2% * $100 difference for the $100 that my CC company gave me back as a result of the dispute charge?
        • pests 2y ago
          > You're paying an extra ~3% to credit card companies in exchange for the ability to dispute a charge. I was responding to this. I also don't understand after re-reading where the "extra ~3%" comes from. If I go to the store and spend $100 on my CC, I'll get $2 cashback. I can pay the $100 off immediately with no interest for a savings of 2%. How are they getting 3% extra from me? I know I get at least 2% back on all purchases and sometimes more depending on the card and category. This is also why I brought up that usually I hear people who pay in cash get overcharged - they pay the full $100. (leaving out how credit card fees require merchants to increase prices leading to even more expenses for cash buyers)
          • mbesto 2y ago
            The "~" is important. Most merchants are incurring anywhere from 3~6% on charges made via CC. Likewise, your actual cashback varies (for example the highest I'm aware of is BoA's 2.65% cashback) and the average consumer is likely only getting about 1.5% cashback. So there is your delta. FYI - For people who work in payments, they know it's not as simple as this, but the point is that there is a delta between the two, and it does help pay for both of the convenience AND the ability to dispute.
            • 2y ago
    • saagarjha 2y ago
      If you refuse to pay they're probably going to send you to collections…
      • mbesto 2y ago
        Sure, but collections for something they have no justifiable reason to collect on? To be clear, what I'm suggesting is (a) hypothetical to understand the business rationale and (b) is under the premise that what is on the bill matches the service you retained. In my theoretical scenario, the onus is on the merchant to prove they've provided the service you've paid for. The reason car rentals provide the convenience of charging your credit card without the immediate authority of you reviewing the charges is a feature of credit cards over cash, and a benefit to consumers. The other feature is that you can dispute those said charges if the merchant is also charging you for services/goods you never received (e.g., gas for an EV).
        • saagarjha 2y ago
          My understanding is you can get sent to collections for basically any reason and debt collectors will hound you without regard to whether it is something you should be obligated to pay or not
          • mbesto 2y ago
            And I can create a class action lawsuit for literally anything I want. Doesn't mean I'm going to win. What's your point?
            • saagarjha 2y ago
              Yes, but against a person?
              • mbesto 2y ago
                A consumer can sue or join a class-action lawsuit to recoup fees where goods/services weren't provider. A business can sue a consumer for not paying. They are two sides of the same coin.
    • sneak 2y ago
      Yeah, this is mostly a fiction, much like the idea that if someone steals from you, your tax dollars fund the police, and you can call them and they'll do anything meaningful. It's a belief held by people who don't actually try to use these systems. Major credit card companies aren't in the business of consumer protection. Many times I've tried to do chargebacks, only to be denied by the card issuer with some unsubstantiated claim by the vendor that they held up their end of the transaction. No recourse short of spending four or five figures on a lawyer and a lawsuit. As a result, if they cheat you out of less than $5k, they win.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
• Teever 2y ago
  I'd love to see a campaign to coordinate small claims court claims against abusive companies. It could really fuck a company's day up if several hundred to thousand people across the world decides to seek redress from a small claims court on the same day.
  • asvitkine 2y ago
    If it's to dispute small charges, the company doesn't need to show up and just accept the loss.
    • Teever 2y ago
      It still costs them to do this because they have to do the paperwork to handle it, the meetings to decide what to do, the confusion that will come from this, and the opportunity cost of these courses, as well as the bad publicity that will come from this announcement that the group doing this will of course release to social media.
  • InfamousRece 2y ago
    Can you use a small claims court if the rental contract has mandatory binding arbitration clause?
    • blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      I don’t think you can unfortunately, and arbitration should be banned. I’m not sure how a system overriding the legal system is allowed.
      • sircastor 2y ago
        It’s not overriding the legal system, it willfully sidestepping it. But obligating the contracted party to agree. The issue of course is that Hertz (in this case) can put whatever random requirements into the contract, and you can’t arbitrarily strike them. You still need/want their service. That said, just because there’s an arbitration clause in the contract doesn’t mean you’re absolutely stuck. You can hire a lawyer and try to get out of it. They’re trying to keep you from doing something like that.