[ISL]

There are some situations where the business owners are correct, especially if their competitors are permitted to tack on extra fees at checkout. Sometimes it is necessary to establish a global rule to prevent prisoner's-dilemma defections.

[gruez]

Why are they opposing the law then? Seems like it would solve the prisoner's dilemma issue.

[pixl97]

For one, there will be an immediate price ratchet that would scare customers away, and they would rather avoid that.

Two, customers (yes, that's us I'm talking about) are dumb and superstitious when it comes to numbers.

$10 = oh no, that's bad

$9.99 = oh, that's perfectly fine!

By raising 'visible' prices for everyone some portion of the customers will shy away from the product, say by buying groceries rather than eating out.

[the_snooze]

>By raising 'visible' prices for everyone some portion of the customers will shy away from the product, say by buying groceries rather than eating out.

Respecting the agency of customers to make informed decisions for themselves. How terrible.

[pixl97]

Heh, especially for the bigger companies they barely see the person buying the food as the customer, instead it's the investors in the stock as the customer. They've not respected the 'buyer' for a long time, and is one of the reasons why we have customer protection laws on the books.

[kstrauser]

They could always lower their prices to the ones they’d been advertising. Sure, they would lose their scam money and that might hurt their finances, but that’s the choice they made when they came to count on the free money.

[swatcoder]

Because they're not just engaged with their competitors. They also have relationships with the government and with suppliers (of food, of labor, etc).

Below the line fees are a political statement, and act as political back pressure against the purported source of some costs.

[pixl97]

I mean subsidies work this way and is why companies hunt around for the best ones they can find.