[thomquaid]

The StubHub example is the abuse that is being banned. Yes, you can bait and switch people and take more of their money than they are otherwise willing to spend if you deceive, manipulate, and withold disclosures. It is (arguably) wrong/bad, but profitable.

[Swizec]

Exactly. When consumers don’t vote in their own best interest with their wallets, legislation is the only option.

Let’s do airlines next

[_blk]

Except that legislation is also not in their favor because companies will just find new ways to make money [as they should - I just wish they were more creative in providing value rather than just the "added fee shortcut"] In the end it's on consumers: People should just reward better service instead of picking the seemingly cheapest option and then cry that the world is unfair and someone has to fix it for them..

[Swizec]

> People should just reward better service instead of picking the seemingly cheapest option

This is easy for us hackernews types with disposable income to say and very hard for the average person to implement. 57% of Americans can’t afford an unexpected $500 expense [1]

Always keep in mind the boots theory of economic unfairness:

> A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-cant-afford-a-50...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory

[_blk]

True but that lies in the nature of choices people make. Apart from mortgage (or in general credit on appreciable assets) I would not recommend the on-credit lifestyle that is ad-suggested as the American Dream™ (that's different for businesses, I'm not against credits in general). As an individual carry insurance, pay the year ahead. Yes it hurts, but not as much as that unexpected 500$ expense... The boot theory works pretty well with credit though ;)

[Timon3]

> In the end it's on consumers: People should just reward better service instead of picking the seemingly cheapest option and then cry that the world is unfair and someone has to fix it for them..

They probably should, but people just don't work this way. We aren't machines that strictly go by the best economical output. Unless you find a way to make people do that (and I don't think this exists, since we'll always be partially driven by emotions) we have two options:

a) let people be exploited by companies

b) legislate against exploitation by companies

I for sure think the latter is the better option, especially since it forces companies to compete on value instead of just extraction.

[FireBeyond]

Ticketmaster. There is no way to obtain a ticket that isn’t couched in a convenience fee: email delivery, venue pick up, snail mail, all “convenient” and chargeable.

[khaoohs]

What is the better service option to Ticketmaster that consumers should be rewarding?

[gosub100]

Isn't it proof that legislation doesn't work? That people can't get simple, common sense laws passed? The past 15-20 years we've had plenty of time to do so, while the fees and surcharges have grown. That timeframe is enough to control for political parties and include a mix of all voter ages and incomes.

[Spivak]

Voting with your wallet is like trying to turn a river by getting a bunch of people together with buckets. Voting with your votes is building a dam.