8 ms·

An excellent change. It's unfortunate that stewardship of the committee will soon change hands as Khan has been a great advocate for fair contracts between com

• mentalgear 2y ago
  Indeed, Khan has been the first real pro-public steward of the FTC for decades.
  • nxm 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • azemetre 2y ago
      meh, her changes are good and empower every day consumers. I vastly prefer Khan over judges that don’t care and act partisan.
• nodesocket 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
    The higher price will be displayed up front and affected companies will have to compete on the real pricing.
  • specialp 2y ago
    That is fine because then someone decides to buy something based on what it costs. The status quo is that some company decides to backload the cost with hidden fees and then all competitors need to follow by doing the same or they will be "undercut". This is just bad for consumers because it makes it very hard to determine what they are paying for something and how to compare it with other prices.
  • rozap 2y ago
    That's fine. Just tell me the price up front.
  • hcal 2y ago
    You're right that businesses might roll fees into the base price, but that’s the point: transparency. When all costs are upfront, customers can more easily compare prices between competitors. Hidden fees make price comparisons difficult and misleading. Take airlines, for example—if one shows a $200 ticket and another shows $180 but sneaks in $30 of fees later, the second one appears cheaper. By requiring prices to reflect the full cost upfront, businesses compete on the actual price rather than deceptive practices. This won’t magically lower costs, but it will force clarity and reward companies offering genuine value. Consumers should have a clear picture of what they’re paying, not a surprise at checkout. Isn’t that just fair competition?
    • tippytippytango 2y ago
      Yes! Markets work better when deceptive price signals are not inhibiting price discovery. When deception is not rewarded.
  • KumaBear 2y ago
    So which is better? Ticket price shows at a price of 100 dollars upon checkout you get a ton of fees and it balloons to 140 dollars. Or ticket price shows as 140 dollars you can choose to buy it at said price or not no surprises later in the checkout process. If prices are perceived as high from the moment someone searches for it they may be more tempted to check elsewhere or opt out.
    • hnburnsy 2y ago
      Some ticket sites won't even show you the fees until you create an account.
  • bullfightonmars 2y ago
    1. I'm not convinced by this argument, airlines compete on list price. If they can add a bunch of fees after winning on list price, they can move more and more of their costs into the fees and are no longer competing on the real price. 2. Let airlines compete on transparent pricing. I think this alone is enough of a benefit to this move.
    • ghaff 2y ago
      They do. On the other hand, I'm typically exempt from a lot of the airline add-ons for various reasons. Airlines are probably not the best example. A lot of people probably want cheaper airfares even if it means less/poorer service in a lot of ways. But it should be as transparent up-front as possible. Even if infrequent travelers may not always understand the details.
      • bobthepanda 2y ago
        I think airlines are a great example because the fees are often actually paying for something materially different. When purchasing concert tickets recently I got a "mobile convenience fee" for an e-ticket even though the venue doesn't operate a physical box office. A recent hotel had a "resort fee" that was not opt-out even if you didn't use the amenities it allegedly paid for. These kinds of BS fees should go away.
        • ghaff 2y ago
          Non-opt-out resort fees and facility fees and the like are especially annoying. They're also (presumably deliberately) a small enough portion of the total amount that they're not really worth getting into a big lather about. I think we're agreeing. While a lot of airline fees are nickel-and-diming, they're also over and above transporting people from A to B, in many cases for as little money as they want to spend as possible.
          • bobthepanda 2y ago
            These days they’re not that small. I recently paid $20+ in fees for a $60 face value concert ticket.
  • getnormality 2y ago
    I think that's all we want. To know the cost upfront so we can compare choices efficiently. We don't expect businesses to lower total cost, just be more cooperative and less exploitative in communicating it.
  • munk-a 2y ago
    Ignoring your last sentence - I'm well aware. These changes increase price transparency and that's something we all benefit from. Junk fees are a way to exploit psychology and ignorance to extract more money out of consumers than they'd like to pay. I'm okay with things being expensive - I'd prefer if they weren't but that's the way to the world - I'm not okay with things being expensive and companies advertising them at a far lower price.
  • jameskraus 2y ago
    There's still a lot of benefit to seeing the prices up front vs. fees which are added on later. It can be a frustrating experience to realize that something you think is affordable is significantly more expensive once you make it to the checkout screen. For example, I've been booking a group trip lately, and I found that the sticker prices for some things didn't include many fees, so it was more of a hassle to actually get accurate quotes. At the same time, the companies which were providing these prices have an incentive to hide fees, because that's what all their competitors are doing – they have pressure to be competitive both at first glance and at checkout. With a level playing field, these fees should be incorporated into the total price across competitors, allowing for easier cross-shopping. I'm excited to be more confident I can quote what I see initially vs. going through a checkout flow.
  • taco_emoji 2y ago
    I get the impression you haven't thought about this very hard.
  • cmurf 2y ago
    You're defending hidden fees? Free markets depend on information. Facts. Not lies.
    • Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
      Let's be honest here. The people that claim to support "free markets" really just mean they support corporations being free to do whatever the hell they want.
      • cmurf 2y ago
        Many people are confused. A free market needs regulation to maintain competition. Companies dislike competition because it lowers profits, and will do what they can to avoid competing on a level playing field. Like adding hidden fees.
        • deleted 2y ago
          [deleted]
        • Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
          I think really there are two types of "free market" supporters. The first is what you're arguing, a version that includes "free of monopolies" in the definition. A market full of competition. A market that has no choice but to serve their customers to the best they can because otherwise a competitor will take their customers. The second are the anarcho-capitalists. They have the naive belief that corporations that do bad things will be punished by the market, making regulations unnecessary and stifling. To them, if one business is winning due to deceit, then the blame lies in the customer for being deceived. They think the decision that leads to the most profit is the best, side-effects be damned. They're insufferable and would gladly destroy the planet for an extra 5% profit on their quarterly reports.
          • cmurf 2y ago
            Anarcho-capitalists are kooks. They're so emotionally attached to capitalism as an ideology, any criticisms or suggestions of its imperfection results in cognitive dissonance. They cannot have coherent conversations outside of a cult like hero worship of personalities like Ayn Rand (who cashed her Social Security checks anyway) and Joseph Gamabos, who weren't even the true believers the anarcho-capitalist cult today have become. Naive is a very charitable term for them. I'd say it's stupidity. In the Dietrich Bonhöffer way of thinking. Stupidity in large numbers (perhaps tribalism), is a greater danger to good than evil.
  • the_svd_doctor 2y ago
    Personally that's all I'm asking for. Transparent pricing. It amazes me how far business will go to to just hide how much they want to charge me. Recently in California, restaurant have been great at making their prices as difficult as possible to try to figure out.
  • atoav 2y ago
    Cool. Come over here to Europe and tell us how expensive our you pay what you expect concert tickets are. Naive shilling for the capitalists doesn't get you anything, except more expensive concert tickets that is. So let me ask you one question. Who do you think will pay more: 1. the person who sees all the costs upfront 2. the person who at the end of the deal will see additional fees please tell me it is 1 and tell all of us how it is you "who understands basic economics"
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• BurningFrog 2y ago
  As a free market fan, Khan seems to have been pretty terrible. But this looks genuinely good! It's basically banning fraud. ---[EDIT], since everyone is asking for reasons here are two libertarian/conservative critiques: • https://reason.com/2024/11/07/good-riddance-lina-khan/ https://reason.com/2024/11/07/good-riddance-lina-khan/ • https://archive.ph/IjNmZ https://archive.ph/IjNmZ
  • RajT88 2y ago
    Ah, Reason. The paragon of good and sensible arguments like, "Legalize Insider Trading". This author has not written one of those pieces, but she is in good company with the ones who did.
  • m_ke 2y ago
    Please name some of the terrible parts EDIT: to make it easier here's a list of actions from perplexity: Here are more explicit actions taken by the FTC under Lina Khan's leadership: Lawsuit against Amazon (2023): The FTC filed a landmark antitrust case accusing Amazon of monopolistic practices in its online marketplace and Prime subscription service. Meta (Facebook) lawsuit (2023): The FTC sued Meta to block its acquisition of virtual reality app maker Within Unlimited, citing concerns about monopolization in the VR market. Microsoft-Activision merger challenge (2023): The FTC attempted to block Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard, though it ultimately failed. Kroger-Albertsons merger: A U.S. district court judge ruled in favor of the FTC to block the proposed $25 billion merger between these two major supermarket chains Nvidia's acquisition of Arm: The FTC sued to block this merger, though it's not explicitly mentioned in the search results Amazon's acquisition of iRobot: While not explicitly mentioned in the search results, this is another high-profile merger that the FTC has challenged under Khan's leadership. Enforcement against data brokers (2022-2023): The FTC took action against several data brokers for selling precise geolocation data that could be used to track people's movements. Zoom settlement (2021): The FTC finalized a settlement with Zoom over allegations of deceptive security practices. Right to Repair initiative (2021): Khan's FTC unanimously voted to ramp up law enforcement against repair restrictions that prevent small businesses, workers, and consumers from fixing their own products. Made in USA labeling rule (2021): The FTC finalized a new rule cracking down on marketers who make false, unqualified claims that their products are Made in the USA. Penalties for fake reviews (2022): The FTC imposed multi-million dollar penalties on companies for using fake reviews and suppressing negative reviews. Action against "dark patterns" (2021-2023): The FTC has taken action against companies using deceptive design practices known as "dark patterns" to trick consumers. Increased use of Penalty Offense Authority: The FTC has revived its Penalty Offense Authority to seek civil penalties for violations of FTC administrative orders. Ban on hidden junk fees: The FTC announced a rule requiring companies to show full prices for items like hotel rooms, concert tickets, and sporting events upfront, rather than hiding fees until the end of the checkout process Changes to merger review process: The FTC has altered principles, practices, and policies of merger review that had been in place for decades Expanded scope of enforcement: The FTC has taken a more holistic approach to identifying harms affecting workers, independent businesses, and consumers, with a focus on addressing power asymmetries and unlawful practices Rulemaking changes: Chair Khan has orchestrated wholesale changes in FTC rulemaking practices and policies Proposed ban on noncompete clauses: The FTC has proposed banning noncompete clauses in employer agreements Increased focus on data privacy: The FTC has sued multiple companies for allegedly sharing customer data and warned about the "hidden impacts" of advertising tools like third-party tracking pixels
• idopmstuff 2y ago
  I think she's done such great work on the administrative side of things with junk fee bans, etc., but I feel like she has also burned an enormous amount of taxpayer money on lawsuits that don't have value (like suing Meta for acquiring the tiny VR fitness company). It feels like she's just against any acquisitions by large companies, and I think that's both too broad of a stance for the FTC to take (as opposed to really looking on a case-by-case basis of whether consumers would be hurt by an acquisition) and also harmful to new companies being created, since suddenly an important option for exits is a whole lot less likely as large companies hesitate to be acquisitive.
  • lobsterthief 2y ago
    Lawsuits are one of the few enforcement mechanisms the FTC has.
    • idopmstuff 2y ago
      Of course, not disputing that, just saying that I think she uses that enforcement mechanism in a way that is more harmful than helpful to American consumers and the to the economy.
      • jjeaff 2y ago
        She also blocked the huge grocery conglomerate merger. I don't think most of their cases were of tiny acquisitions.
        • idopmstuff 2y ago
          True, but even on the big ones, she blocked Spirit/JetBlue. Now Spirit's declared bankruptcy. She spent a bunch of taxpayer dollars to block a merger and made the American consumer worse off as a result.
• bsimpson 2y ago
  Tangential, but I was looking into this yesterday and couldn't find the answer: How does her term work? Seats on the FTC are supposed to last for 7 years. She was nominated in 2021 and her term technically expired a couple months ago. Apparently she gets to remain in it until a replacement is appointed. Has she just been filling in the remainder of someone else's term, like Laphonza Butler as CA Senator?
  • zerocrates 2y ago
    FTC terms work like that, a replacement for a commissioner who leaves mid-term only gets the time remaining on the original appointment, not a new full 7 years. But they also can hang on past the nominal end date until a successor is actually confirmed. The prior chairman, Joseph Simons, had this same seat that Khan has now, so for him his term was also nominally set to expire September 2024. He resigned when the administration changed over in 2021.
• libertine 2y ago
  This whole new fantasy that billionaires know best for consumers is quite concerning. The idea that these institutions, like FTC, are bad for consumers, and this new blind faith that things must be deregulated because the market will solve it for the better is going to be interesting. By the way, when things turn bad, it's we who will pay the price again for this deregulation, not billionaires. It's like people are choosing fantasy and magical thinking over History... 2008 wasn't that long ago.
  • jjeaff 2y ago
    The idea of the wealthy robber barons knowing better is actually no new. It's a renewal of what the old robber barons like Rockefeller and Carnegie et al espoused.