[fc417fc802]

It isn't grasping at straws because confusing or misleading people is literally how dark patterns work.

> Do you think "$500 biweekly" car ads, or "$2000/month" apartment rentals are the same?

The rentals make it very clear what the contract period is and what the penalty for breaking early is. Those terms are also tightly regulated in most jurisdictions for exactly the reason that they are prone to abuse.

> I'd expect buyers to read the very legible text under the price tag.

Given that the text fails to provide details about the fee is this even a valid contract to begin with? On multiple levels there's clearly been no meeting of the minds.

> if you read most complaints, it's clear that they're not even aware that such early termination fee even existed.

Isn't that a strong case that it's an unfair practice?

[gruez]

>The rentals make it very clear what the contract period is and what the penalty for breaking early is.

On the billboard or in the multi-page rental agreement that they send for you to sign? How is this different from than the ToS/fine print on adobe's site?

>Given that the text fails to provide details about the fee is this even a valid contract to begin with?

It's probably buried in the fine print somewhere, which courts have generally held to be enforceable.

>Isn't that a strong case that it's an unfair practice?

No, the legal standard is "reasonable person", not whether there's enough people bamboozled by it to raise a ruckus on reddit or whatever.

[fc417fc802]

I can only speak for myself here but I have never had an interaction with a new (to me) landlord where I was later surprised to discover what the rental period or early termination penalty was. Every one of them has gone out of their way to verbally specify the length of the term in addition to requiring me to initial it on the contract.

I have had plenty of other issues with borderline dishonest landlords but mutually understanding what was being agreed to up front was never one of them. The issues generally came later when they tried to get out of or add additional things without my consent.

> It's probably buried in the fine print somewhere, which courts have generally held to be enforceable.

People elsewhere in this comment section reported that they checked and claimed that it is not found anywhere directly linked from the sales page. You generally have to specify the terms of a contract up front, before it is signed.

> No, the legal standard is "reasonable person"

It isn't conclusive, but I think it makes for a strong case. The more people who are confused by it the stronger your argument that it is confusing to a "reasonable person" becomes.