>they can't just write a single thing that writes all wrongs.

Found the attorney! Nobody asked for "a single thing that writes all wrongs."

Simple, broad laws can absolutely be written, they are especially easy to write, and they are usually the best laws for decent average citizens, but decent average citizens are not who laws are written for in the United States. Most people already know this.

The UK requires that all advertised prices include all extras and charges a typical customer will pay.

Ie. If you charge £100 for a hotel room, but have a £5 fee for using the lights, you have to advertise it as £105 because nearly every customer will be needing the lights.

Super simple rule. Works really well.

In this case, it isn't "writing a single things that rights all wrongs"

Its "Write something that helps consumers know what they'll be paying"

It wouldn't even be changing the billing at all, but changing how they advertise pricing. Fees such as the example would need to be included in advertised total price of your bill. You wouldn't even need to change the bills. The companies have enough staff to do this in advertising. Government agencies' staffing would be stretched with or without such a rule.

I live in the UK and the policy on fees is effective and runs about a hundred pages. What you are describing is regulatory capture.

> hundreds of pages long and specific to the industry

Very convenient how it works out

For my behaviour the law is very short and clear - taking product or service without paying for it is theft.

If I pay for 1 car but take an additional wheel, I am a criminal.

But management of a company can wake up one day, take more money from my account and call it an additional fee for the same service.

Typically the will be advertised as BIG MONTHLY PRICE $50/mo

Then an asterisk and tiny, tiny print somewhere below stating "plus taxes and fees"

So it depends on how you define "fees not included in the advertised price" but the last time I had a postpaid plan, I couldn't even know how much those added taxes and fees were until my first bill arrived.

Nope. This is an extra fee that they add to recover the cost of making your phone calls work. This fee is not included in the advertised price.

Our founders said this was going to be a problem but better to have lobbying out in the open as the devil you know.

Cui bono

This works until Theater A signs an exclusivity deal with the publisher of that pre-recorded performance, such that going to Theater B to see the same show is not possible because Theater B is not legally permitted to show it.

Granted, such exclusivity deals are rare (because generally publishers want to maximize their revenue rather than artificially constrain it), but not unheard of (for example: films made specifically for IMAX's fancy setups).

Ok, so why is the government endorsing hidden fees for fungible products? There is no situation where this benefits anyone but shareholders.

>If you're trying to see the single Chicago date of Tropical Fu Dogs' Coconut Cream tour, well, you either pay the fee or you don't ever see that show.

Isn't that an argument for stronger disclosure laws for pre-recorded performances? If there's a monopoly, deceptive pricing wouldn't do much because the monopolist is still your only choice. but if it's a competitive marketplace, deceptive pricing might actually lead to consumers choosing worse providers.

"The Commission notes that the harms of bait-and-switch pricing and the misrepresentation of fees and charges are particularly pronounced in industries such as these, in which most transactions occur online. Consumers trying to comparison shop across multiple websites, or even on the same website, when deciding what tickets to purchase or where to travel are unable to do so effectively because some businesses hide the true total price and instead force consumers to go to different sites and click through multiple webpages for each offer to learn the true total price"

Simply put, cinemas didn’t engage in this bad behavior (yet) so they escaped regulation.

They also have far more price sensitive customers and they're competing against streaming platforms. It's not like the cost of movies and TV has gone down. But, nobody is going to pay 50 bucks for a seat unless it's a spectacular movie at the best IMAX in the country. I think a seat for Interstellar cost close to that when it came out. The average blockbuster in an average small theater? Physical theaters are already on their last legs. They've banked on lower seat count to put in larger couches/recliners, started to offer alcohol and they still make margin on the food. They're also re-running classic movies for not much more than a rental - The Matrix again? All of Studio Ghibli? Yes please. In many ways it's a great time to go to see movies in the theater. The experience has markedly improved and the cost to consumers hasn't risen that much in absolute terms.

The Regal near me charges about $15 for a normal evening seat, less for a matinee. I'm sure I've paid more in Ticketmaster fees for a single performance.

[dead]

That sounds more like a civil law vs common law distinction.

In a civil law country if something causes a problem, the legislative branch would be expected to come up with a general solution. (eg https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...)

In a common law country, if something causes a problem an executive agency or a judge would be expected to figure out a solution that doesn’t set a precedent that is too wide and general.

Corruption makes it magically less of a problem.

The closest I can think of is people paying for amazon's streaming service, and realizing that most of the shows and movies on the service require various amounts of money to watch on top of the monthly fee they're already being charged. Netflix (and almost every other streaming service) had already set an expectation that paying for a streaming service would be enough to watch the shows offered on that service.

That said, back when I actually had prime it was only ever for the shipping so I never saw how amazon advertised their streaming service to people. Maybe the ads actually said "Sign up to Prime Video today for $187 and get access to 20% of the shows on the platform as well as an opportunity to pay even more for the other 80% of the titles!"

I've also seen random mentions of spotify having hidden fees, but I've never used the service and have no idea if they have them or ever have had them.

If you buy tickets online, Regal adds a small fee. It’s like $2.

The issue is LiveNation adds $80 in some cases.

Movies are fungible and available in masses. Say a big hit name like AC/DC, they're showing up in some entire country once in a decade. The competition to get a ticket for this specific show is insane.

A movie however? There's competition both in time (a showing is booked out? fine, I'll just go a week later), in venues (at least in most cities there's at least two) and there's an effective ceiling on price, particularly as consumers are already struggling financially.

Hotels can be even worse. They will add a "resort fee" when you show up. You can refuse to pay, and then have nowhere to stay.

They mention "hotels," in the report, but don't get specific as to services offered.

From Wikipedia: Nominated in March 2021; Served in office June 15, 2021 – January 20, 2025

Coincidental timing, I'm sure!

100% of the votes against confirmation were Republican. Fewer than half the R Senators voted to confirm her. Her predecessor, Obama nominee Edith Ramirez, was confirmed unanimously.

I suggest we let the different parties take responsibility and/or credit for their decisions.

I hope things continue to be that way, but have you read this?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensu...

lol.

Lina Khan was appointed to the FTC by Joe Biden as part of a broader decision to allow Elizabeth Warren expanded oversight of economic regulation as a way to coalition build with the somewhat more progressive (but still pretty establishment) parts of the Democratic party.

Lina Khan was Biden's pick because she was Warren's pick.

To be clear about my own biases, I think Lina Khan was a fantastic pick and did an amazing job and would have done even greater things if left in place, but to act like she was a bipartisan choice (beyond, say, JD Vance throwing out some rhetoric on the campaign trail) is revisionist history.

The sovereignty of independent agencies is HEAVILY in question at the moment. Consider arguably the MOST independent agency (the FED) and how recent threats, while perhaps not DIRECTLY influencing policy potentially introduced bias or coercion to future FED actions.

Sometimes the threat or suggestion of something, like DOGE firing an employee who doesn't grant them immediate root access, is enough to subvert the entire system.

Time will tell if independent agencies are as independent as some choose to believe.

[flagged]

In-place regulations present an opportunity to trade nonenforcement for financial compensation. A nonexistent regulation does not.

> Whether the FTC enforces it is, I guess, up to whoever is running it at whatever time.

Which is something that was always true for all executive branch departments but was essentially weaponized by the Obama administration and then really taken to an extreme by the Biden admin

Given the admin's frequent use of carrot-stick incentives to achieve goals, I'd give fair odds to revised policy should affected parties bend knees sufficiently.

The fact that this consideration applies to any policy / enforcement / regulatory position the US government takes for the next four years, domestic or foreign, is of course its own immense problem.

Was the TikTok 180 unlikely too?

I have a personal conspiracy theory it's specifically because these things anger people. Once everyone is riled up, the less scrupulous among those seeking power can claim without any challenge whatsoever from the media they are the only people capable of making things better. And a good chunk of the electorate seems to buy it, wholesale.