Lawsuit filed against MGM over resort fees

[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".

[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.

[accountinquestion]

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.

[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."

[The Boz]

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.

[AndrewG]

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.

[MisterV]

Surely no one believes it

Some do.

And stop calling me Surely.

[tominnv]

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.

[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.

[tominnv]

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.

[MisterV]

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.

[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.

[mickeycrimm]

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.

[AndrewG]

I believe resort fees are subject to taxes.

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

[The Boz]

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?

[MisterV]

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.

[DRich]

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.

[Ozzy]

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.

[MisterV]

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.

[tominnv]

My, such the corporate apologist.

Calling out stupid illogical bullshit is not a corporate apology

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.