Slashdot Log In
Blockbuster Sued Over Late Fees Claim
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Feb 19, 2005 01:33 AM
from the read-the-fine-print dept.
from the read-the-fine-print dept.
DesiVideoGamer writes "CNN has a story about Blockbuster's violation of New Jersey's consumer fraud act in which they made false claims in their "No More Late Fees" campaign. New Jersey Attorney General Peter Harvey filed a lawsuit today in hopes that Blockbuster would stop misleading their customers into thinking they could keep their movie rentals as long as they want without penalty."
Related Stories
[+]
News: RIAA Says CDs Should Cost More 540 comments
EatingSteak writes "The folks over at Techdirt just put up a great story today, with the RIAA claiming the cost of a CD has gone down significantly relative to the consumer price index. The RIAA 'Key Facts' page claims that based on the 1983 price of CDs, the 1996 price should have been $33.86. So naturally, you should feel like you're getting a bargain. Sounds an awful lot like the cable companies saying cable prices are really going down even though they're going up."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Price Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Price Point (Score:5, Interesting)
It's bad enough that the movie industry waters everything down into mindless pap without the video store trying to decide what I should and shouldn't view.
Parent
Re:Price Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Blockbuster does not actually censor the films themselves, but they are a powerful player and have exerted their influence in order to get directors to release "R" version of certain films rather than the "NC-17" unedited cut.
However, I think you are wrong about Rogers. The Rogers Video on Lonsdale in North Vancouver has an adult video room with full fledged porn, so I'm fairly certain they are not cutting scenes from "Boogie Nights"
Parent
Re:Price Point (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize the irony in your statement, right? I spent 10 minutes in google and google grou[s looking for supporting evidence of your claim about "Black Sheep" and not find a single mention of it.
Did you compare the video of the Black Sheep you rented from Blockbuster with one from another source? Changes between the theaterical release to the official home video release happen all the time. For example, see Terminator 3 -- the widescreen DVD is missing boobies that were shown in the theater and are, oddly enough, on the fullscreen version (and it ain't open matte). But it doesn't matter if you got your DVD of T3 from BBV or Amazon, they are all the same content.
So far lots of hearsay, but zero supporting evidence for the "censorship happens" side. This is an old urban legend that most likely is the result of confusing Wal-Mart's getting specially edited versions of music CDs and using guilt by association to apply the same reasoning to BBV's DVDs (BTW, while Wally World may still do this with the occasionally ultra-popular but 'offensive' CD, they have never done it with DVDs.)
As I've purchased over 500 used DVDs from Blockbuster since 2000 I have just a little more knowledge of this topic than most.
Parent
Re:Price Point (Score:4, Funny)
hawk
Parent
and another important point: (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:and another important point: (Score:4, Interesting)
According to the manager of the store, I was supposed to ask if they were participating. They had no signs anywhere stating this fact. I bet they made a killing on late fees in January here. I bet they made a lot less money so far this month.
This was pure bait and switch. The consumer relates the local franchise to the main corporation (thats the idea of franchises!!!). So consumers had every right to think their blockbuster would be participating. Of course they're right about it being their choice. But, how many times has McDonalds had a promotion and the one you go to is not participating? I can't think of one time a food franchise in my town has ever not participated in a corporate promotion.
Anyway, they've lost my business forever.
Parent
Re:Price Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Price Point (Score:4, Funny)
hawk
Parent
Gasp! (Score:5, Funny)
By the way, what, exactly, does this have to do with my rights online?
your rights online... (Score:4, Funny)
By the way, what, exactly, does this have to do with my rights online?
You have the right to use Netflix, which doesn't suck.
Parent
Netflix Rocks (Score:5, Interesting)
Now instead of watching the same cheap movies over and over we have a great selection that includes foreign films, documentaries, TV (including British TV series), special interest and, somewhat ironically, the series from the recently disposed premium subscription channels.
I couldn't imagine going back to anything as primitive as a video store, especially Blockbuster. *urp*
Parent
Why do we need a lawsuit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do we need a lawsuit? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think keeping a deposit equal to the max number of rentals for an account, and doing away with due dates, is a pretty good idea.
Parent
Re:Why do we need a lawsuit? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Why do we need a lawsuit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Why do we need a lawsuit? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not a complaint against Netflix -- I use them myself. Just pointing out that either system could be more cost-effective, depending on how many DVDs you rent each month.
Parent
Re:Why do we need a lawsuit? (Score:5, Interesting)
If we've reached the point where a company can advertise the end of late fees when it actually charges a late fee (just calls it a restocking fee), all without being subject to a lawsuit, then we have reached a new level of stupidity in the legal system.
I'm sorry, I'm a big believer that some of the disclaimers we require are ridiculous, but saying you don't charge late fees when you do is just wrong.
Parent
Re:Why do we need a lawsuit? (Score:3, Informative)
You have your normal free account, and there are no more late fees. That's it. (if you keep more than 7 days past the return time, there is a restocking fee, but its a buck 25, who cares).
Re:Why do we need a lawsuit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, that's the new late fee.
Parent
Re:there are no more late fees... (Score:5, Insightful)
They say no late fees. They mean no late fees. It doesn't say anything about other fees.
Get the point?
Parent
Phone reminders (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Phone reminders (Score:5, Funny)
I also would return the movie if someone was coming after me with scissors.
Parent
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Well... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
a way to purchase? (Score:4, Insightful)
Truth in advertising (Score:4, Insightful)
I can get a free cell phone almost anywhere. 3 years and $2000 later it's paid for.
I can buy a car at 0% interest....but if I pay cash it's $$$thousands$$$ less than if I do credit.
How come none of these advertisers are sued? Does the government really need to protect me against the cost of a DVD because I didn't read the fine print while ignoring far larger issues?
Re:Truth in advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they were a little shell shocked by how quickly I nailed everything down finances-wise because they tried to sell me on a stereo upgrade for "only $17 a month". Hmmm. $17 a month x 60 months. $1020 for an "upgrade"... I'm thinking.... no.
Parent
The Blockbuster Plan from the horse's mouth! (Score:5, Insightful)
"This lets you keep the rental for a couple of days extra, just to allow you extra time."
That was pretty much about it, nothing about the restocking fee, which was just appeared on their price list one day. Nothing about after 30 days, we charge your credit card on file for the rental value of the rental.
The reason for the lawsuit is simple... they changed the way they do their rentals, because they suspect that you could accidentally forget aobut the rental and then keep it too long, but then since they will debit your credit card, by the time you find out, it's too late.
Now, here is the problem, you were NEVER told about the restocking fee or the 30 days late we charge you. That is down right wrong. They should tell you EXACTLY what will happen. Even in the commerical, there are no little words at the bottom of the screen or some crazy fast talking guy.
It's riding VERY close on false advertising, but it is the end of late fees... they just have restocking fees and purchase charges!
THANK [Fill in god of your choice] FOR NETFLIX!!!
Cable ISPs did the same thing (Score:5, Interesting)
After they oversold an insane amount, realized they were going to lose their shirts, they started introducing bandwidth caps. All while still advertising UNLIMITED INTERNET ACCESS.
It's sad that we need lawsuits and regulations to deal with this sort of thing - but I'm sorry, don't advertise something in 100% plain english if you're not going to follow through.
Blockbuster just rolled this campaign out in Canada, and I've been waiting to hear the catch. Call me a hopeless optimist, but NO MORE LATE FEES means, in English, that if I return a movie LATE, there will be NO FEE as a result of my returning it late. Looks like NO MORE LATE FEES just means DEFERRED LATE FEES.
Morons. They deserve whatever they get. This is about as ethical as advertising $25 cars - with small print explaining that there is a $25,000 processing fee.
Own it on DVD Today! (Score:5, Funny)
"WTF? For what??"
"Criminal Copyright Infringement!!"
"Huh?"
"You posted millions of copies of Star Wars III on the intarnat!"
"Yeah... so?"
"That's copyright infringment! You'ze goin down!!"
"Ah, no. I own it."
"???"
"I own Star Wars III. I can do with it what I want."
"Er, no. You may own the DVD, but not the movie. You're coming with us."
"No, I own the movie. I followed the TV ad: 'Own it on DVD today!' By 'it', they mean the movie. So, I own the DVD, and what's on it, the movie."
"Tell it to th' judge!"
later...
"Your honour, I own the movie. Look at the TV ad that caused me to buy it."
"You have a copy of that ad?"
"Sure, watch!"
"GUILTY!"
"WTF, er, I mean, why, your honour? I own the movie, no?"
"The movie, yes. You're guilty of copyright infringement for showing me the ad that says you own the movie. You don't own the ad. Take him away!!"
Re:Own it on DVD Today! (Score:4, Funny)
(much later, in prison)
"You don't understand! I'm George Lucas! I OWN the movie!!"
Parent
Finally (Score:5, Informative)
You have 7 days after the due date to get your movie back. This means, if it's due monday, get it back the following monday by NOON.
If you fail to do this, you will get charged the retail price (unless it's been out for awhile) of the dvd, game, or vhs.
Bring it back before 30 days (this is where they get really shady, because even I dont know if it's 30 days late or 30 dates after the 7 day thing), and you will get a full refund minus a $1.50 "restocking fee"
This fee is supposedly charged to cover the cost of sending you a bajillion phone calls and postcards reminding you that your stuff is due. Mind you, there's a glitch in the system at the moment that will still call you even if your stuff has been returned. (I might also add that you should call us if you get that call and know you brought your stuff back. It may be on the shelf NOT checked in)
If you don't bring it back before the 30 days, you are STUCK with the movie. Come in and get your cover art, you're entitled to it. There is no way you can get your money back after this point.
So, ending this long reply. No matter what, unless you get your movie back within two weeks (most of the time), you're still getting charged.
Hope this helped you out... I hate this company.
When you say "work" (Score:5, Funny)
I think you meant to say "worked"
Signed,
Your Area Manager
;)
Parent
Re:Finally (Score:4, Informative)
Merchants are not allowed to use Visa/Mastercard for collections purposes. They can't charge you "punitive fines" without your approval and authorization.
Here's an example: suppose you stay at a hotel. You agree to pay for your room stay, but while you're there you get drunk and trash the place, causing $500 in damages. You leave before anyone notices the damage, so nobody had a chance to bill you.
The hotel owner decides to bill your Visa card for the amount of the damages. While it may be true that you owe the hotel owner $500, you never gave the hote owner permission to take that $500 from your Visa card. Because of that you can talk to your bank, tell them you didn't authorize the charge, and get the money back. (You can then go to jail for whatever crime you committed, or write a check for that same amount of money...but we're just talking about Visa/Mastercard's world here.)
In this case, Blockbuster will try to argue that your signature on the rental agreement authorizes them to charge your card. For *this particular sale* though, when you left the store you understood you would be charged only a rental fee. I believe whatever authorization you gave on your contract doesn't actually protect them as much as they think it will.
So if you charge back one of these charges from Blockbuster, you aren't saying "I don't really owe Blockbuster money", you're actually saying "I might or might not owe Blockbuster money, but either way, they do not have the right to take that money from my Visa/Mastercard account. Ask me to write a check or pay cash instead."
If they bill you the cost of a game ($50.00), that costs them at least 75 cents in credit card processing fees, probably more. So they *have* to charge some kind of restocking fee, or else that "gentle reminder" when they charge your card will *cost* them money when you return the game.
Above all else, though, keep this in mind: if someone charges your card for punitive damages or fines/fees you did not specifically agree to, you can file for a chargeback. Talk to your issuing bank.
Understand the difference though:
"You owe me $500 for tearing up your hotel room. Pay me now or I'm calling the police." --> "OK, fine, charge my card." -- in this case there was authorization, so no chargeback.
Hope this helps!
The opinions in this post are my own, and may or may not also reflect the opinions of my employer, First National Merchant Solutions. I did not actually have the phone-book-sized Visa/Mastercard regulations manuals in front of me when writing this, so I might be wrong. The "hotel" example came straight from our chargeback department, though, so I'm *very* sure the theory behind this post is correct. This is not banking advice -- your situation may vary, so talk to your own banker for situation-specific banking advice.
--Michael Spencer
Stop Code 3270
First National Merchant Solutions
1620 West Dodge
Omaha, NE 68197
Parent
it's not stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Now with that in mind, if I actually used Blockbuster I would go in, and rent a new release movie for whatever X amount they charge. Now within common sense Blockbusters "NO LATE FEES" policy they have advertised, they CAN institute a policy that say within 30 days you must return the video, but within those 30 days you WILL NOT be charged late fees. And they could throw in some clause such as if the video is not returned, your account is forfiet. No late fees doesn't mean "keep forever" but it means that if you forget or just don't give a fuck like most common people when they rent a movie, you won't be penalized for it.
Is that ok? No, of course not. People shouldn't automatically assume you can keep it forever after "Renting" it for $5. HOWEVER, Blockbuster is in the wrong here. They blatantly advertised NO LATE FEES. In their ads, they never mention you must sign up for some special monthy deal or pay a monthly fee, they just say NO LATE FEES. A nickel and dime lawyer could win this case of Faulty Advertisment in court quicker than OJ was aquited.
Quote from Blockbuster's Website (Score:5, Informative)
Sure enough, they have a huge banner ad saying "The end of late fees". There are no asterisks, fine print, or other disclaimers.
However, if you click on the "Terms" button at the bottom of every page, you get a few pages of legal text such as their privacy policy, copyrights, terms regarding their Online Rentals, and .... terms on their In-Store Rentals. Lo and beyold:
Hopefully CREDIT CARDS are on the chopping block! (Score:4, Interesting)
Explaining the policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Quote from TFA:
The company said it was "surprised" that Harvey did not contact company officials to allow them to explain the new policy.
The average customer doesn't get any special explaining... If they're judging an ad campaign, how can they judge it, save by looking only at the campaign?
Am I alone here (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a question: am I alone here in thinking that I actually like Blockbusters(BB) new policy? Now, let's make things clear, I am from the club that thinks that BB is evil. I don't like how they use their corporate clout to force censorship, they are over priced, and they are abusive to their underpaid staff.
Whrn I saw their new ad campaign that said you could keep your movie for an extra "day or two", immediately I thought the worst. I figured that on day three they would charge you for all three days missed and continue to abuse you. When I read the deal (look it up,I am not gonna explain it here) I thought it was extremely fair.
Lets be clear, you are still renting something, and you are expected to return it. If you do not, they do have to restock it. They may have to buy a new copy. It will require paperwork. These things take an employees time, who is being paid money.
I use Zip, so I am still not about to switch, but if I really want to see something, or I need to rent a movie for whatever reason, I would consider using BB. I would like know that if I like the movie, I can just keep it, and I can return it at my leisure without having to worry about things. A week is a long time people. A month is even longer, and an extra $1.75 for those 3 weeks isn't that mutch.
pk
Re:Well, it is worse-- (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Well, it is worse-- (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well, it is worse-- (Score:4, Insightful)
You can keep the movie for 7 days in ADDITION to the normal rental time of the movie. Then, after that seven days, you have 30 days (from the orignal rental date) to return it only beeing charged 1.25$ restocking fee.
Before this, you kept the movies for their rental times then the big late charges piled up. For the price of keeping it one day, you've already got more fees on your account than keeping it up to one month with the new system.
How much do you think you'd pay for a movie keeping a new release 30 days with the old system? I bet it would be more than the movie is worth and you'd still have to return it. Now if you keep it that long, you've payed and you now own the movie.
How you got +(x) informative for saying yuck to a deal that charges you signifigantly less money with no catches is beyond me.
Parent
Re:Well, it is worse-- (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Well, it is worse-- (Score:3, Informative)
From blockbuster's site link [custhelp.com]:
Re:Another way (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A rant... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, just for **extra spite value**, rip and compress it to your hard drive, so that every time you play it you can say, "Yeah! Take that Blockbuster, you FUCKERS!"
That's what I do... and frankly, it feels good every time I do it.
Parent
Sorry to break it to you... (Score:5, Informative)
Note I have only viewed the Canadian version of Shrek 2, which contains both English and French audio tracks, so the American version might be different.
Parent
Re:Bunch of whiners! (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a scenario, what if the pamphlets and the dead links said you had to turn over your first born child?! Would that be fair too?
The fact is that Blockbuster COULD have put the fact that you've bought them after a week on their signs AND on their website. How difficult is it to say, "There are no more late fees, after a week, you've bought it!" The ONLY reason that did not do something so incredibly simple is because they want to deceive their customers!
The fact that Blockbuster did NOT say that means they were committing fraud by omission.
I agree that consumers have to take some responsibility, but when a company says "no more late fees" but then charges you 20 bucks automatically after a week, they are screwing customers over!
Parent