Lawsuit filed against MGM over resort fees

https://www.reviewjournal.com/busine...-fees-2299475/

Travelers United, a nonprofit travel advocacy group, filed suit against MGM on February 18, accusing them of violating DC consumer law. The group claims that resort fees are deceptive, and violate the District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act.

The lawsuit is mostly about Las Vegas properties, focusing upon DC-based travelers who were charged the resort fees when visiting Las Vegas.

Interestingly, they are claiming that the elimination of certain "amenities" during COVID, yet keeping the resort fees the same, is proof that MGM's claim of the resort fee "paying for amenities" is a sham. Of course, it is a sham, since the resort fee is required, and you cannot simply turn down those amenities.

I have long said that resort fees are deceptive and should be illegal. The lawyer for Travelers United, Lauren Wolfe, appeared on my radio show a few years back.

Currently, resort fees are utilized in order to deceive customers using online search portals into believing that the nightly price is far lower than it is. Contrary to popular belief, resort fees don't usually make the stay more expensive overall. The properties tend to take the price they want to charge, and then move a portion of it to a "resort fee". Obviously this is deceptive and needs to stop.

It's about time somebody took those deceptive bastards to court.

Please keep us updated.

I believe too many people get upset over this and it isn’t a big deal. It more shows the overall stupidity of the average American and their inability to read details or easily fall for something too big to be true. Caesars was promoting $9 rooms a few months ago to try and get people to Vegas. Did anyone with common sense think not to read the details on it?

I understand people wanting to be a consumer advocate, but is this the hill to die on? Think about it, how many idiots are lined up at H&R Block or any other tax prep firm willingly paying 200%+ interest rates to get their refund faster? And paying a firm to file a simple 1040. You can’t fix it when they are too busy to get off their phone and learn basis finance.

As long as the Resort Fee is posted before you click to book the room, it’s on the buyer to do the math in my worthless opinion. And it’s not a Vegas issue anymore. Almost every decent hotel I stay at across the country charges a resort fee anymore, along with a parking fee in most larger cities.

It would be easier to defend and live with the idea of resort fees if they only were only charged to and owed by patrons who actually used the service in question.

But charging a fee for a service someone never used or wanted to use is unfair: we should have the choice to opt out of fees at the time of booking or have them decucted at checkout if we never used the service in question.

For patrons like me the only service ostensibly paid for by resort fees that I'd use is parking, for example: why should I be charged for pool, phone, internet and boarding pass priniting if I never use it?

It's like a hooker charging for half and half when all you got was a blowjob.

Mr Boz says to read the details. But when I see low price ads I don't see the details. All I see is some phrase saying something about not including taxes and fees.

By the way, how much are the taxes on a Vegas hotel room?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Mr BoSox says to read the details. But when I see low price ads I don't see the details. All I see is some phrase saying something about not including taxes and fees.

By the way, how much are the taxes on a Vegas hotel room?

---

Here is the answer from a simple booking on the Caesars website.



My point is while resort fees suck, they are clearly there if someone takes the time to look.

But that's not what shows on their ads. That makes the advertising deceptive.

What if I advertised a bedroom set for "$29 plus stocking fee" and the store's "stocking fee" was $1200?

I think the case has merit. I am surprised such a case wasn't brought years ago. If resort fees were really about add on services like wifi and such that would be fine, as long as the patron had the option. When you make it mandatory, it really isn't about those extra services, it is just a way of disguising the basic price. Really just a version of the old "bait and switch".

I find it interesting and smart that the case was filed in Washington DC. Had such a case been filed in Las Vegas/Nevada, with casino industry friendly judges, the outcome would have been predetermined, if the cases wasn't tossed before it ever got going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewG

But that's not what shows on their ads. That makes the advertising deceptive.

What if I advertised a bedroom set for "$29 plus stocking fee" and the store's "stocking fee" was $1200?

---

Then you would still see the total price before purchasing and could make a decision. While yours is an extreme example, I think we agree many will fall for it if the stocking fee was “only” $50. Which car dealers do on every ad. They add delivery fees and other garbage in the fine print. I don’t see calls against that.

I understand your client, or one of them is a consumer advocate. But what is the difference here compared to an ad that says “plus tax”? It is still the consumers responsible to know exactly what they are paying for a purchase IF the information is not hidden in a 20 page contract. In the case I posted above it took 3 clicks from the start to pick a room and find out the exact breakdown.

I just don’t get this battle, if resort fees goes away, the room would be $99 a night before taxes. It’s not going to be $64 with an optional $35 resort fee for a bunch of stuff most of don’t want. It’s an advertising gimmick, period.

That said, it shows how bad things are still in Vegas when one can book a room for under $110 complete on a weekend with 1 days notice.

I think the hotel tax in Vegas is 12%. West Wendover is probably the highest in Nevada at 16%.

Here is a 2 click from Chapman on a new Dodge.



Note all the qualifications to get the lowest price. Is it deceptive advertising to put the $16910 price out there? Or is it the customers responsibility to see what they qualify for before going to the dealership? In both cases, the hotel and the dealership, the details are clearly there for the consumer. You can’t hold their hand at every step.

More interesting to me is the extra $1500 and $750 you may qualify for if your FICO score is BELOW 620. Can you imagine the interest rate and bait & switch that goes on with this? This is exactly why the poor family guy who came in looking for a $17K new van walks away with a $25k used van with 80,000 miles on it at 19.9% for 84 months. And the dealers are high giving each other over fucking the guy under the guise of helping him. You talk about discrimination, this is a 1st for “rewarding” bad credit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Boz

Then you would still see the total price before purchasing and could make a decision. While yours is an extreme example, I think we agree many will fall for it if the stocking fee was “only” $50. Which car dealers do on every ad. They add delivery fees and other garbage in the fine print. I don’t see calls against that.

I understand your client, or one of them is a consumer advocate. But what is the difference here compared to an ad that says “plus tax”? It is still the consumers responsible to know exactly what they are paying for a purchase IF the information is not hidden in a 20 page contract. In the case I posted above it took 3 clicks from the start to pick a room and find out the exact breakdown.

I just don’t get this battle, if resort fees goes away, the room would be $99 a night before taxes. It’s not going to be $64 with an optional $35 resort fee for a bunch of stuff most of don’t want. It’s an advertising gimmick, period.

---

This is true if someone wants to book a hotel at Caesars. Go to their website and click on the dates and book the room. But that is not a typical visitor. A typical visitor might be willing to stay at any number of places on the strip or downtown or maybe even close enough, like Rio or Westgate. They don't care where they stay, so long as it is a good value for them. By hiding half the cost of the room as "resort fees" it changes nothing about the value of the hotel room, but makes it a pain to compare different places to try to find the most suitable one. It would be like if the box of cereal at the grocery store had a price of $1.00 or more, only when I get to the register do I find the actual cost and decide if I want to pay it.

I just don't get why anyone would fight to keep the practice of resort fees. If they were banned, no one would be worse off, because just like you said the room would be $99 instead of $64 + $35. Some people would be better off, as we could comparison shop a lot easier, instead of wasting time having to deal with a bullshit gimmick.

Casino Royale is the only strip casino that does not charge a resort fee; this doesn't mean the rooms are cheap, it just means they choose not to mislead people.

Couple this to free parking at Wynn, Encore, Venetian and Palazzo and hey, just like the old days.

Boz thinks that because at end of checkout process fees are always made known it is fine.

I don't know what the solution here is. I pay for a cloud phone system per line. They have this whole price listed and how much it'll cost and not until the actual check out moment do you see there are additional prices that are not taxes. Hate that shit. Taxes are different because they're necessary by the government. Whatever - but mixing the actual cost of something out in some overtly misleading manner is not something I'll ever get behind. Glad to see them sued. It is either that or more laws to prevent this. Not sure which is better. Tired of resort fees which are not optional.

Maybe the solution is to make places liable for the first price offered by statute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Boz thinks that because at end of checkout process fees are always made known it is fine.

I don't know what the solution here is. I pay for a cloud phone system per line. They have this whole price listed and how much it'll cost and not until the actual check out moment do you see there are additional prices that are not taxes. Hate that shit. Taxes are different because they're necessary by the government. Whatever - but mixing the actual cost of something out in some overtly misleading manner is not something I'll ever get behind. Glad to see them sued. It is either that or more laws to prevent this. Not sure which is better. Tired of resort fees which are not optional.

Maybe the solution is to make places liable for the first price offered by statute.

---

The thing is,Resort fees used to not exist at all and then ONE Casino decided out of the blue to charge Resort Fees and soon other Casinos decided to follow the Leader and
play Monkey see Monkey do and add them too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Boz thinks that because at end of checkout process fees are always made known it is fine.

I don't know what the solution here is. I pay for a cloud phone system per line. They have this whole price listed and how much it'll cost and not until the actual check out moment do you see there are additional prices that are not taxes. Hate that shit. Taxes are different because they're necessary by the government. Whatever - but mixing the actual cost of something out in some overtly misleading manner is not something I'll ever get behind. Glad to see them sued. It is either that or more laws to prevent this. Not sure which is better. Tired of resort fees which are not optional.

Maybe the solution is to make places liable for the first price offered by statute.

---

Nice reply, AQ, I think some are misunderstanding my stance on this. I agree it’s a waste for most people and isn’t “fair”, but what is? And why is this the one that pisses people off so much?

The cell phone or cable bill is a perfect example and we just accept it.

Ever try to buy a mattress? Perhaps the greatest example out there. The companies do everything possible to NOT allow you to compare prices including not selling the same named mattress to 2 different retailers. Comparing hotel room costs in Vegas is simple compared to this.

Look at the current craze with food delivery like Doordash and Grubhub. People end up paying $20 for a $7.99 burger combo when all the fees are added. They just don’t care. To me it comes down to life not being fair, but in the end we all have choices.

I’m just not sure I want government and the courts wasting time trying to fix laziness and stupidity. If there is legitimate criminal activity going on by hiding fees and then overcharging a customer, different story. But from what I see, the true and final numbers are there if you take the time to look.

And again, this isn’t just a Vegas thing, just booked a trip to Wyoming to a private hotel. And of course resort fees are part of the deal. And include nothing I’ll use other than maybe 2 bottles of water per day. Again, my choice to accept it, find another resort without them or sit home. Life goes on.

it should be the law that all posted or advertised prices ANYWHERE include FINAL price INCLUDING all taxes and fees, period. call it the Pricing Transparency Act. this has been my opinion since I was 8 years old buying my first candy bar with my own money only to find out that a dollar wasn't enough to buy a 99 cent candy bar and it hasn't changed.

Mr Boz not everyone is as smart as you or is as observant as you when it comes to fine print. Sometimes small print is enough. Other times we need bold lettering or even bold print in a black box.

One other point. Resorts diverted some pricing to resort fees to reduce the commissions paid to travel agents. It's not just consumers who were targeted by resort fees.

I have an off the wall question for AndrewG and resident lawyers. Is there some expense deducting advantage for casinos if they can contractually categorize all patrons as having used fitness centers, the parking garage, bought newspapers, and so on? In other words, if you have 500 rooms and everybody is locked into the resort fee contract, does that mean you get to pad expenses in some way? Does a fitness center servicing 500 total people in 24 hours get to look like a bigger expense on a ledger than one that services 50? Does a parking garage that ostensibly services 500 people get to claim more expenses than one that services 250? Or is there no real way to advantage that?

Jesus Christ, people, stay at home and w4tch the p4r4de of "internuts". --->

The Leaf's destruction starts! (Naruto episode)

https://anagram-solver.net/Jesus%20C....?partial=true

_______________________________________

There are currently 444 users online. 4 members and 440 guests <--------------

Most users ever online was 4,270, 10-03-2020 at 02:18 AM.

Darkoz, jj5957

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Boz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Boz thinks that because at end of checkout process fees are always made known it is fine.

I don't know what the solution here is. I pay for a cloud phone system per line. They have this whole price listed and how much it'll cost and not until the actual check out moment do you see there are additional prices that are not taxes. Hate that shit. Taxes are different because they're necessary by the government. Whatever - but mixing the actual cost of something out in some overtly misleading manner is not something I'll ever get behind. Glad to see them sued. It is either that or more laws to prevent this. Not sure which is better. Tired of resort fees which are not optional.

Maybe the solution is to make places liable for the first price offered by statute.

---

Nice reply, AQ, I think some are misunderstanding my stance on this. I agree it’s a waste for most people and isn’t “fair”, but what is? And why is this the one that pisses people off so much?

The cell phone or cable bill is a perfect example and we just accept it.

Ever try to buy a mattress? Perhaps the greatest example out there. The companies do everything possible to NOT allow you to compare prices including not selling the same named mattress to 2 different retailers. Comparing hotel room costs in Vegas is simple compared to this.

Look at the current craze with food delivery like Doordash and Grubhub. People end up paying $20 for a $7.99 burger combo when all the fees are added. They just don’t care. To me it comes down to life not being fair, but in the end we all have choices.

I’m just not sure I want government and the courts wasting time trying to fix laziness and stupidity. If there is legitimate criminal activity going on by hiding fees and then overcharging a customer, different story. But from what I see, the true and final numbers are there if you take the time to look.

And again, this isn’t just a Vegas thing, just booked a trip to Wyoming to a private hotel. And of course resort fees are part of the deal. And include nothing I’ll use other than maybe 2 bottles of water per day. Again, my choice to accept it, find another resort without them or sit home. Life goes on.

---

The problem with the resort fees is it is not fully transparent. They should be allowed to do it, but when you search on hotels.com it should show the full price. The resort fees have become a thing now. They started out as a lie and have continued so.

It pisses people off because they're being lied to and the whole process is made more difficult than it should be.

As far as food delivery services I hate using those for pick-up because the same fees are often embedded in there. I will spend 10 minutes trying to determine whether the prices I'm paying are the same at the restaurant.

I call them "fuck you fees". I've thought about opening a business that is a middleman and relies on such fees. If I needed another form of income, I'd consider it again.

The problem is this has become the "new normal".

I look at resort fees as a tax on the stupid. If you don't know that they are there you didn't read the details and you are stupid. If you are against resort fees just book a place that doesn't have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRich

I look at resort fees as a tax on the stupid. If you don't know that they are there you didn't read the details and you are stupid. If you are against resort fees just book a place that doesn't have them.

---

I guess it must be smart to spend the time to keep up with the current resort fees of every property on the strip. Doh stupid me.

Blame some bean-counter who was thinking outside the box.

"Hey, you know what? Hide the ball, those sheep are too fucking stupid to catch on."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Blame some bean-counter who was thinking outside the box.

"Hey, you know what? Hide the ball, those sheep are too fucking stupid to catch on."

---

I think you kind of hit it. Alan’s lawyer said most people aren’t that smart. I think it’s 2 lawyers saying the same thing, but one is more PC about it. The fact is the majority of people aren’t stupid in my mind, but they are kind of lazy and either don’t care they get fucked or don’t want to learn.

The question to me is what responsibility do businesses have to be transparent to a customer and what level of responsibility does the consumer have? It opens many doors and asks a lot of questions.

Should the government have sent a disclaimer with the best way to use the stimulus money being sent out this week? With 80-85% of the recipients really not needing it as they didn’t suffer during the past year, should we help them on how to spend or invest it? We all know most will waste it on tattoos, seafood boils, casinos and Best Buy shit they don’t need. Should the government show what the money sent for a child would be worth in 60 years invested in an index fund with historical returns? That the S & P 500 has returned 17662.090% in the past 60 years? That the $1400 would be worth over $240,000 in 60 years?

Using another example, the other lawyers client Alan ran a TV show to help consumers find “Best Buys”. Advertisers pushed $39 carpet cleaning and such. Should they be required to disclose the actual amount their average customer ended up spending with them? Surely no one believes it is worth their while to send a crew out for $39, or do some consumers? What should the full disclosure be?

I showed a car dealership example yesterday. Should they be able to advertise a price few will qualify for?

There are so many more I see as worse than Resort Fees if one is really concerned about the consumer. The question to me is still if the total cost is there within 3 clicks, where is the problem? Or should we dumb everything down so that someone who doesn’t care to find out what they are paying is protected?

And yes, I know this is a Vegas site so that’s why we are discussing it here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I have an off the wall question for AndrewG and resident lawyers. Is there some expense deducting advantage for casinos if they can contractually categorize all patrons as having used fitness centers, the parking garage, bought newspapers, and so on? In other words, if you have 500 rooms and everybody is locked into the resort fee contract, does that mean you get to pad expenses in some way? Does a fitness center servicing 500 total people in 24 hours get to look like a bigger expense on a ledger than one that services 50? Does a parking garage that ostensibly services 500 people get to claim more expenses than one that services 250? Or is there no real way to advantage that?

---

I don't think you need to be a lawyer or a tax expert to answer this question. Businesses are entitled to deductions for expenses which include operating costs as well as capital expenditures.

I think you're asking... if everyone pays a resort fee does it mean a resort can claim everyone uses the spa and gym which justifies higher costs for cleaning?

The answer is no.

The resort would still have to justify deductions for cleaning with receipts for cleaning.

An old IRS audit trick: when checking a restaurant's deductions for laundering table cloths and napkins, the IRS auditors will show up and count the used table cloths and napkins in the laundry bin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Boz

Surely no one believes it

---

Some do.

And stop calling me Surely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRich

I look at resort fees as a tax on the stupid. If you don't know that they are there you didn't read the details and you are stupid. If you are against resort fees just book a place that doesn't have them.

---

If you consider paying for a hotel room a tax on the stupid, then that logic would mean that anyone who ever spends money on anything is taxed for being stupid.

As everyone seems to agree, the resort fee is just a part of the cost of the hotel room that is not disclosed in some places, but is in others. It would be like a store advertising a gallon of milk for $2, then when I go to buy it, they tell me there is a $2 container fee. If any store tried that, it would be such bullshit that I would want legislature to ban it. And if they did not do so explicitly, the courts should be asked to decide if it is ok or not. And I would want the courts to tell them they are being complete assholes and they can't do it.

For those who think it would be frivolous lawsuits, or silly government involvement, it would be a very small intervention and there would be no negative effects to the seller or the buyer, as the cost would remain exactly the same, and there would be no negative externalities to anyone else. That is the exact type of decision I want the government to make.

Oh, these corporations are clever all right.

I noticed recently that the size of the Florida's Natural orange juice that we buy have gotten somewhat smaller than they once were but of course the price did not shrink along with the container.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Oh, these corporations are clever all right.

I noticed recently that the size of the Florida's Natural orange juice that we buy have gotten somewhat smaller than they once were but of course the price did not shrink along with the container.

---

Is any of the information about size or price hidden to the customer at any point? If not, that’s perfectly fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tominnv

Is any of the information about size or price hidden to the customer at any point? If not, that’s perfectly fine.

---

Fucking sheep.

It may be legal but it sure as hell isn't fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tominnv

Is any of the information about size or price hidden to the customer at any point? If not, that’s perfectly fine.

---

Fucking sheep.

It may be legal but it sure as hell isn't fine.

---

What should they have done? Stopped selling orange juice? Would that have been better for you? Become a government subsidy program and sold it for a loss? Maybe the customers could have learned how to read packages to help them make decisions instead of being retarded sheep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Boz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Mr BoSox says to read the details. But when I see low price ads I don't see the details. All I see is some phrase saying something about not including taxes and fees.

By the way, how much are the taxes on a Vegas hotel room?

---

Here is the answer from a simple booking on the Caesars website.



My point is while resort fees suck, they are clearly there if someone takes the time to look.

---

I notice there is no hotel tax on the resort fee.

I believe resort fees are subject to taxes.

https://www.lasvegasdirect.com/las-v...n%20the%20fees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewG

I believe resort fees are subject to taxes.

https://www.lasvegasdirect.com/las-v...n%20the%20fees.

---

It appears the current room tax on the strip is 13.35%. So in the example I posted the tax was also charged on the resort fee. However the 13.35% on the $194 total including resort fee would be $25.90. Caesars listed $25.96, I wonder where the extra 6 cents came from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tominnv

What should they have done? Stopped selling orange juice? Would that have been better for you? Become a government subsidy program and sold it for a loss? Maybe the customers could have learned how to read packages to help them make decisions instead of being retarded sheep.

---

My, such the corporate apologist.

Riddle me this, Batman: why didn't they play honest and simply raise the price of the existing product?

But no, they underwent the unnecessary expense of retooling, reprogramming and revamping everything in order to make a smaller container to be sold at the same price.

Why do you think they did that as opposed to simply raising the price of the old, existing sized container of OJ?

Obviously it was an attempt to mask a per ounce price hike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

My, such the corporate apologist.

Riddle me this, Batman: why didn't they play honest and simply raise the price of the existing product?

But no, they underwent the unnecessary expense of retooling, reprogramming and revamping everything in order to make a smaller container to be sold at the same price.

Why do you think they did that as opposed to simply raising the price of the old, existing sized container of OJ?

Obviously it was an attempt to mask a per ounce price hike.

---

I would say that is the perfect example of someone taking advantage of stupid people that are too lazy to read the package. I am all for exploiting stupid people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

My, such the corporate apologist.

Riddle me this, Batman: why didn't they play honest and simply raise the price of the existing product?

But no, they underwent the unnecessary expense of retooling, reprogramming and revamping everything in order to make a smaller container to be sold at the same price.

Why do you think they did that as opposed to simply raising the price of the old, existing sized container of OJ?

Obviously it was an attempt to mask a per ounce price hike.

---

I would say that is the perfect example of someone taking advantage of stupid people that are too lazy to read the package. I am all for exploiting stupid people.

---

Wow we must be honored to have Mr contradiction himself post back to back days. Another casino executive playing both sides of the fence, willing to 86 his fellow AP's, you don't get much more 2 faced then this guy. He constantly contradicts himself on a weekly basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRich

I would say that is the perfect example of someone taking advantage of stupid people that are too lazy to read the package. I am all for exploiting stupid people.

---

I'm not: I actually give a shit about ma and pa Kettle, those products of the American educational system whose poorly educated mental bulbs are too dim to see the reality in front of them.

Again: seemingly legal, yes; fine, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

My, such the corporate apologist.

---

Calling out stupid illogical bullshit is not a corporate apology

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Riddle me this, Batman: why didn't they play honest and simply raise the price of the existing product?

---

They are allowed to make the choice to sell their product in whatever size they think is best. Do you really think Coke should forever sell their drinks in 6.5 containers and any changes is dishonest? iPad should only be sold in its original size screen? Car models should never get bigger or smaller?

They are also allowed to sell their product for whatever price will maximize profits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

But no, they underwent the unnecessary expense of retooling, reprogramming and revamping everything in order to make a smaller container to be sold at the same price.

---

They believed it was a good step to increasing business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Why do you think they did that as opposed to simply raising the price of the old, existing sized container of OJ?

---

Most likely it was to maintain or increase profits, so that they can continue to operate as a business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Obviously it was an attempt to mask a per ounce price hike.

---

By clearly showing the size on the container, there was no masking. Your claims that they made an attempt to mask the size of their product is not being honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Again: seemingly legal, yes; fine, no.

---

Which part is not fine? Is it not fine for a business to ever change the size of their product? Is it not fine for them to clearly state the size of what they are selling to anyone who looks at the container? Or is it not fine for them to sell at a price that maximizes their profit?

Resort fees are different. I just typed in "las vegas hotel april 6 - 8" and saw a price listing for T.I. for $23 per night. Only after clicking on five different links and putting in personal information do I see that the actual price is $67 + taxes. That is not being honest and should be prohibited.

To the casual eye, the size difference in Florida's Natural OJ containers is not noticeable, most especially to the harried housewife zipping down the grocery aisle.

There was no NEED to make the container smaller, other than to trick the buying public, which despite your braying corporate apologies is an example of intent to deceive.

But hey, the highway to hell is paved with such intentions: hope you enjoy the ride.

Even in a small online phone, my casual eye can see what the size is. Your refusal to spend the fraction of a second it takes to look at that information when it is actually in your hand is not deception on their part. You are absolutely right that there was not a need to make the change. It was a choice they made. Just as you made the choice to ignore available information about something before you bought it. It is hilarious how you are so desperate to avoid any responsibility as a consumer, that you accuse anyone who does check the labels as a corporate apologist.

I didn't buy the OJ, my wife did: I'm a married man, why the hell would I bother to shop in a grocery store, that's her job, i.e. it's woman's work.

It was when she brought it home that I noticed it and brought it to her attention.

I mentioned it because their slick move is akin to the move by casinos to charge resort fees, as neither change is initially obvious to the casual eye.

Both are also examples of how inflation has run rampant despite the efforts by the powers that be to convince us otherwise.

But hey, you like it, you got it, sport.

shady deceptive shit isn't shady and deceptive because *I* spend the time to look at every bit of fine print on every fucking thing I buy!
t. this thread

have you guys tried buying a half gallon of ice cream in the last 15 years? No such thing anymore. The long traditional half gallon first was reduces to 1.75 quarts and then to 1.5 quarts. It has almost become commonplace to reduce size, in an attempt to mislead, but that is not illegal, just misleading and kind of sleazy.

There is something called the truth in advertising laws. There are really two parts to this. One has to do with making false claims of a product. An example would be a weight loss pill that advertises that you can lose 30 pounds in 30 days simply by taking this one capsule. So because of the truth in advertising laws, they are forced to include small print saying something to the effect that "results advertised aren't typical".

The second part of the truth in advertising laws has to do with pricing and in particular bait and switch. It has to do with advertising the actual price of products and services. This is where resort fees is going to fail. If it was really an add-on for "extra" services that customers could chose to accept or refuse, it would be fine. But that is not what resort fees are. I think there is a reasonable case against resort fees.

The size of an orange juice container is available to the casual eye every time someone looks at the package, picks it up, and buys it. If someone does not look at it, that is their choice. Being able to make informed choices, like having the size printed on the container, is always good for the consumer and it is not corporate apologies. Resort fees are not listed the majority of times a hotel room price is quoted. That is a significant difference.

It is not readily noticeable to the woman in a hurry to grab items off the shelf and toss them in her cart.

Some may notice, some may not, but that is not the point.

The point is that the fuckers shrank the package but charge the same price.

Were they honest they'd have kept the same size package and raised the price.

KJ, my wife said Umpqua ice cream (Oregon made, the best ...) also shrank their container size late last year so yeah, this sort of deceptive marketing is likely to become endemic.

Which brings us right back to the stupid idea that anytime a business ever changes the size of their products they are not being honest. That means Coke, Apple, every car maker, and virtually every company that sells products are not been honest at times, because products are constantly changing sizes. Again, that claim is stupid.

If someone is unwilling to look at the available information about the size, the would also miss the available information about price. Those people are always going to be deceived, by not caring enough to look at what they are buying.

You are quite obviously an apologist for people who do not pay attention to any details.

There is nothing "stupid" about my point, you corporate apologist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

The point is that the fuckers shrank the package but charge the same price.

---

I look for the juices that are more concentrated, to begin with. Adding half water breaks the sugar content. There is quite a difference between brands, once you add half water, and, then, try it out.

Anyway, another way to look at this, psychologically, is that the company wants to keep the product affordable. Say that you, a kid, maybe, have $3 to buy a chocolate Easter egg, but, it went up, last week, to $4. Better to buy a smaller one at $3, what you figured on when you left home, than do without the $4 one.

In jest, call everything a pack of Yo-Yo's. Then MrV will see two yo-yo's for every yo-yo in the pack.

Well, just shop around for the orange juice that didn't go up. Or, a smarter wife, there MrV. No wonder you're so fucking up tight, all the time.

The other thing is it sets your relationship with the hotel on a bit of bullshit standing from the beginning. Is it too much to ask the place you're staying to relax at to be genuinely upfront?

Just more nickel and diming as Las Vegas loses its magic because gambling can now be had all over the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

The other thing is it sets your relationship with the hotel on a bit of bullshit standing from the beginning. Is it too much to ask the place you're staying to relax at to be genuinely upfront?

Just more nickel-and-diming as Las Vegas loses its magic because gambling can now be had all over the country.

---

People reap what they sow. Not a lot apparently.

In general, and specific, people do nothing to really and actually tackle corruption, where it exists, in the world. Everyone, and every one wants desperately to bend over backwards to be part of such a population, or group, to move up the food chain. At which point, they are even less happy.

Where does it stop? Not with the wimps, and schizophrenics like MrV. It can stop only on an individual (who has it together) basis.

___________________

Come on, MrV, come out of hiding! Are you the biggest coward wimp happy-to-get "scalped" asshole out there? What a Goddamn idiot.

No wonder you go through life getting PISSED on. Ha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

There is nothing "stupid" about my point, you corporate apologist.

---

Your point is that it is not honest to provide all the information you want, because some people choose to ignore it the information they provide. If that point is not stupid, then the person making it must be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tominnv

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

There is nothing "stupid" about my point, you corporate apologist.

---

Your point is that it is not honest to provide all the information you want, because some people choose to ignore it the information they provide. If that point is not stupid, then the person making it must be.

---

Oh, MrV is more than stupid. The nutter does any drugs, says any goofy remark, whatever, to be the biggest piece of shit going.

*reach horribly exceeds grasp

_________________________________

Hey, I had some more fun-fun, just now.

The phrase, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," goes to a couple of closely connected things, in the anagram solver, within the first 30 answers. The two words, Portland, and Oregon. What's even crazier is that, when the fewest digits required, to bring both answers to the top, are separately inserted into the above phrase, well, the numerals are 154, and 77. But, 154 = 2*77. How neat is that? Sort of like seeing two yo-yo's for every yo.

I guess that truth really and actually is stranger than fiction.

The road to hell 15 p4ved with good intentions. ---> The Old Engine Shed, Portland.

https://anagram-solver.net/The%20roa...s?partial=true


The road to hell is paved with good in7en7ions. ---> Oregon State Health Division.

https://anagram-solver.net/The%20roa...s?partial=true


MrV working on his own cars, living in his own private straight-jacket land. (Of course, in his own mind, well, he's strong as a friggin' kid of twenty with the fastest car ever made.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tominnv

Your point is that it is not honest to provide all the information you want, because some people choose to ignore it the information they provide. If that point is not stupid, then the person making it must be.

---

No, you missed the point.

They never provided any information; one day the new, smaller box was put on the shelves but marked at the same price as the older, larger container.

Of course there were no prior announcements or ads telling the buying public that they were doing it.

Nor were there signs in the store announcing it: 'twas simply a fait accompli.

You say the mfr provided information?

No, they didn't provide a damned thing, other than to remove the older, bigger containers from the shelves and replace them with smaller ones.

It was a trick designed to engineer an immediate price increase with john q. public unlikely to notice how they're getting fucked until after the purchase was made, if then.

It would be difficult for the average, hurried shopper to notice the difference in container size, which compounds the felony.

No, you missed the point, you twit.

If everything becomes a bit smaller at the same prices, then the periodic grocery bill will remain exactly the same. For those who can't immediately meet an increased grocery bill, well, they could, still, enjoy their full selection of groceries, without having to fart around with deciding which they will have to do without.

___________________________

Now I see the main problem with ignoring decent posters because afraid they will, from time to time, not totally agree, if at all. Threads end because the ignored posters much better points remain unchallenged so far as making even better points.

None are so blind as one who won't see.

Felony stupidity, from the weed gallery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

No, you missed the point.

They never provided any information; one day the new, smaller box was put on the shelves but marked at the same price as the older, larger container.

---

The reason why I missed your point, is because it is based on your deceit and lack of honesty. When you claim that the information was not provided, that is a lie. The information about the size of the container is right there on the container, easy to see even in a small picture. For you to claim that they are not providing the information to everyone who looks at the container is deceitful and dishonest.

If it was a trick, it was a bad one, because very few people are so stupid that they won't refer to the label on the package to help make their purchasing decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

It was a trick designed to engineer an immediate price increase with john q. public unlikely to notice how they're getting fucked until after the purchase was made, if then.

---

Since you agree that it is possible to notice after the purchase, that should mean anyone who puts gives it a casual glance would also notice the size of the container before purchasing it.

Obviously a corporate apologist such as yourself is not worth engaging in further discussion.

Which is a shame; for a moment or two I thought you were something other than a disputatious troll.

As with carnabby: "Ignore."

Done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Which is a shame; for a moment or two I thought you were something other than a disputatious troll.

---

Wh1ch 1s a shame, for a moment or two I thought you were someth1ng other than a d1sputatious troll. --->

There Ain't No Sweet Man That's Worth the Salt of My Tears.
Trust Not Those in Whom Without Some Touch of Madness.

https://anagram-solver.net/Wh1ch%201....?partial=true


Just a "touch" now, MrV. Hehehe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

As with carnabby: "Ignore."

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Boz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Boz thinks that because at end of checkout process fees are always made known it is fine.

I don't know what the solution here is. I pay for a cloud phone system per line. They have this whole price listed and how much it'll cost and not until the actual check out moment do you see there are additional prices that are not taxes. Hate that shit. Taxes are different because they're necessary by the government. Whatever - but mixing the actual cost of something out in some overtly misleading manner is not something I'll ever get behind. Glad to see them sued. It is either that or more laws to prevent this. Not sure which is better. Tired of resort fees which are not optional.

Maybe the solution is to make places liable for the first price offered by statute.

---

Nice reply, AQ, I think some are misunderstanding my stance on this. I agree it’s a waste for most people and isn’t “fair”, but what is? And why is this the one that pisses people off so much?

The cell phone or cable bill is a perfect example and we just accept it.

Ever try to buy a mattress? Perhaps the greatest example out there. The companies do everything possible to NOT allow you to compare prices including not selling the same named mattress to 2 different retailers. Comparing hotel room costs in Vegas is simple compared to this.

Look at the current craze with food delivery like Doordash and Grubhub. People end up paying $20 for a $7.99 burger combo when all the fees are added. They just don’t care. To me it comes down to life not being fair, but in the end we all have choices.

I’m just not sure I want government and the courts wasting time trying to fix laziness and stupidity. If there is legitimate criminal activity going on by hiding fees and then overcharging a customer, different story. But from what I see, the true and final numbers are there if you take the time to look.

And again, this isn’t just a Vegas thing, just booked a trip to Wyoming to a private hotel. And of course resort fees are part of the deal. And include nothing I’ll use other than maybe 2 bottles of water per day. Again, my choice to accept it, find another resort without them or sit home. Life goes on.

---

The problem with the resort fees is it is not fully transparent. They should be allowed to do it, but when you search on hotels.com it should show the full price. The resort fees have become a thing now. They started out as a lie and have continued so.

It pisses people off because they're being lied to and the whole process is made more difficult than it should be.

As far as food delivery services I hate using those for pick-up because the same fees are often embedded in there. I will spend 10 minutes trying to determine whether the prices I'm paying are the same at the restaurant.

I call them "fuck you fees". I've thought about opening a business that is a middleman and relies on such fees. If I needed another form of income, I'd consider it again.

The problem is this has become the "new normal".

---

Correct, for the most part.

Resort fees exist to make it harder for the consumer to know the exact price of what they're considering buying. The mattress example given by Boz isn't a good one, because you immediately know how much the mattress costs. They just make it tough to comparison shop with other stores. Here you don't even know the price until you go through a long booking process, which is bullshit.

It is deceptive. End of story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRich

I look at resort fees as a tax on the stupid. If you don't know that they are there you didn't read the details and you are stupid. If you are against resort fees just book a place that doesn't have them.

---

"Tax on the stupid" isn't what's going on here.

It's flat out deception, and unethical business practice. Being familiar with Vegas, I know what to roughly expect for all the resort fees there. But the average consumer won't necessarily have that knowledge.

Resort fees are all over the place now -- not just Vegas. For example, I would have no idea what to expect for the resort fee if I went to Dallas, or how prevalent they are there. Does that make me stupid?

These should be illegal. Excuses should never be made for corporations attempting to mislead the public regarding pricing.