Amy, you should have reported him to Visa anyway. He's ripping people off and you cannot charge people extra for using a credit card.

Amy, did you happen to see Weinergate, The Sequel? At least Weiner is in somewhat good shape! This 53-year old N.J. County Official needs to realize that when the goods are a little shopworn, you don't put them on display in the front window. Though a couple of things I say for him. 1) This wasn't a Twitter accident; he was legitimately set up; and 2) He didn't try to pretend they were fake.

Who has the kind of free time to litigate over a .75 paper.

Amy, you should have reported him to Visa anyway. He's ripping people off and you cannot charge people extra for using a credit card.

True. He's going about this all wrong.

He needs to raise prices to cover the CC charges, then can offer a cash discount to those not using a CC.

I R A is absolutely correct. I used to work for a business that did that. They were charging people extra who used a credit card, then the CC companies told them to knock it off. So, they simply offered a discount to those who paid by other means.

I actually rather liked solving this myself.

The entire point of this post is that things don't get better until we stop running off to tell Mommy that Bobby was mean to me. Or whatever.

You don't ALWAYS need to appeal to authority. Especially if you're older than six.

If you do, you get more authority in your life.

What a moron, onviously attention starved

Exactly, Crid:

The entire point of this post is that things don't get better until we stop running off to tell Mommy that Bobby was mean to me.

First, get up on your hind legs and bark. And bark again if necessary.

I wonder if Mr. Harmon ever wanted to be a cheerleader...

Actually, the practice of "cramming" or adding extra charges to a bill has become commonplace.

Your phone bill, or any other service you regularly pay is likely to become crammed at some point. So will "one-offs" such as hotels, where they know you are in a hurry to check out etc.

I dislike litigation--but I also dislike picayune arguments over 75 cents when I have a taxi to catch.

There is always "we will have to check with management before we fix the bill" ploy. And then it never happens.

Sometimes, you just get rolled and butt-diddled (I added that for Crid).

Ms. Alkon, that is an instance where a class action suit is a useful device. Perhaps even necessary, if we wish to avoid an economy filled with such niggling charges improperly sought.

Businesses that seek to impose a very small charge across many customers rely on the fact that for any one customer, the hassle of noticing and then correcting the business' improper practice is too large when measured against the charge improperly imposed. That is, a customer has to spend more than 50 cents of their time to address a 50 cent charge.

Yes, your particular idiosyncratic nature made you that 1 in 1000 customer who will bother with a 50 cent charge, but the business gets to pocket the other 999 charges, which is the real goal for the business.

A class action suite permits the 999 people to engage in collective action without cost to address the business' bad behavior. In that way, a class action suit allows for an economic counterbalance to businesses that would otherwise find it too tempting to "salami slice" that 50 cents from all the other people less idiosyncratic than you on this issue.

That is not to defend every instance of a class action lawsuit, or to argue that class action lawsuits as they are currently run by lawyers are optimal ways to provide a counterbalance to businesses seeking such rents. (Nor am I saying you are somehow wrong for having the idiosyncratic preferences you do.) But you are describing an instance where a class action suit is likely a useful tool to address the business' behavior. Insisting that every one of the 999 act like you is actually to say 999 people must, like you, spend more than 50 cents of their time to make sure no one takes 50 cents from them. That is a very bad way to organize an economy.

The other good tool is the Visa/Mastercard system itself, which takes a dim view of merchants trying to collect those rents. That is why you should report the merchant. To the extent more market-oriented means are employed, there is less need for lawyers and their tricksie ways to get involved.

Although I think a class action lawsuit is a bit ridiculous, this does seem to be a case of the hotel's deceptive practice.

Where do you guys stand on phoning the consumer affairs division of the state's attorney general? Complaining to get the $0.75 removed from the bill will work only the person who is complaining, but will probably not end the deceptive practice.

(Offtopic: Oh shit here we go again.)

Meanwhile... I sometimes worry that I'm too much of a priss... That my comments here aspire to bogus elegance, with transparent motives of sniveling self-interest. And then I read a comment like that one from Spartee, which began like this:

Ms. Alkon, that is an instance where a class action suit is a useful device. Perhaps even necessary, if we wish to avoid an economy filled with such niggling charges improperly sought.

Next time anyone uses the word "wish" with you —unless they're saying "I wish you'd unbutton your blouse", or "I wish you'd bring me a scotch & water"— you should turn around and spit right in their eye.

And that's on top of the control-freaky presumption that we can have whatever kind of economy we want, or one where people don't push every boundary.

Bleecccccccccchhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

More on wish fulfillment

Besides, Robert dispensed with Spartees size-hyooge argument in the second comment here. And note that he did it with less that a tweet's worth of words

> Complaining to get the $0.75 removed
> from the bill will work only the person
> who is complaining, but will probably
> not end the deceptive practice.

There it is! That's the reason our government is so fucked up!

People want PERFECT, PERMANENT solutions for trivial problems.

They're FRIGHTENED that they might ever have to say to someone "Hey fucker, give me my money back". They imagine we could have a world where that kind of nightmare never happens.

They're on the wrong planet.

Crid-

Did you get rolled and butt-diddled, like maybe this morning?

Your commentary seems hyped up.

The wasted papers are an "offensive waste of precious resources and energy," said the suit...as it furiously mass reproduced itself for the viewing pleasure of judges, lawyers, secretaries, paralegals, news reporters, court reporting clerks, and other applicable stakeholders to said case.

The wasted papers are an "offensive waste of precious resources and energy," said the suit, which also said that "deforestation caused by paper production is a matter of concern and worry in this state, country and worldwide."

Oh. So, he's not just a whiny jerk pitching a temper tantrum over trivialities.

He's an environmental crusader saving the world for all of us!

So, I'll have him to thank the next time I go to a hotel and don't get my USA Today with its pretty pictures, colorful graphics, and ocassional news story.

What's next? Some guy gets accidentally charged for a muffin and the continental breakfast is history?

Why are you stalking Crid, Botu? It is really creepy.

Actually, crid, Robert's attitude is precisely what the "salami slice" approach to stealing relies one: who *does* have time and inclination to deal with a 50 cent quasi-theft like the one Ms. Alkon experienced? Not many people.

So most people ignore it, but the perp gets a honking big pile of money over many such ignored instances of theft.

Sure, your reaction is that everyone should take a stand, but consider that people must first notice and then take action. The cost of people noticing and taking action actually costs them time in excess of the 50 cents. Given that, a rational actor would actually ignore the 50 cent theft, because addressing it costs more than 50 cents.

But if we let those tiny thefts happen, the whole economy likely becomes subject to such salami slice antics. So we need some countervailing incentive to keep businesses like credit card companies, banks, cable companies, cell phone carriers and the like from pulling the salami slice stunt.

One of the ways we kept in check the incentives for businesses to ack in ways like Ms. Alkon experienced is the threat of a lawyer finding an instance of salami slice pricing and being able to organize a class action lawsuit. Attorney general actions are another. Visa and mastercard's interest in merchant activity is a third. Etc.

(Regarding the newspaper suit, which seems much less interesting from an economic/game theory perspective, that just sounds odd. With a million or so lawyers running around in the country, there are plenty of instances where one files not just ill-considered, but flat out crazy lawsuits.)

Once in a group discussion, I pointed out that pulp-wood trees, from which paper is made, are an agricultural crop. They are grown and replanted for that purpose. Chanting, ‘save the trees,’ makes as much sense as saying, ‘save the turnips’. Of course if you don’t like turnips, I can understand that. I got a few laughs, but it makes the point.

True. He's going about this all wrong.

He needs to raise prices to cover the CC charges, then can offer a cash discount to those not using a CC.

A local gas station does this but I wonder how many companies signed a contract that won't even allow that...

Either way, I want to know how much of my tax dollars just paid this troll to bitch over a .75cent charge and a 5" cube of some tree farmed specifically for paper.

> most people ignore it, but the perp
> gets a honking big pile of money

"Perp"? Seriously? A few pennies' worth of cleverness (thwarted in seconds by a redhead who had other things on her mind at the moment), and you need to summon the rhetoric of a tri-state manhunt for a bank robbery?

I don't think you've got a firm grasp on the proportions of virtue.

Are you an attorney?

I know that hotels charge for papers, and if I don't want to pay for one, I'll tell them to not put one by our door in the morning.

Why would you, unless it's your first time ever staying in a hotel, assume it's free? Do you assume the stuff in the minibar is free?

PS Many hotels try to charge you for everything short of breathing. Being a frugal broad, I watch for this, and try to make our stay less ridiculously priced. At the Ritz-Carlton in New Orleans where they held the newspaper conference, a hamburger was $17 and so was a Po Boy. Gregg was buying lunch, and would have treated me to whatever I wanted, but I don't eat $17 hamburgers if I can help it. I figured out that I could make lunch out of the $11 bowl of gumbo - and did (hold the rice, of course!).

Here's a "perp" story.

There's no candy in the world as sweet as incisive sarcasm.

Amy:

I agree with Spartee that class actions are intended to address situations similar to this, where the defendant wrongfully charges a large number of plaintiffs a nominal amount of money, with the result that the defendant receives a considerable financial benefit. Each plaintiff on his or her own has little or no incentive to stop the wrongful behavior, but a class action provides incentive to act on behalf of all plaintiffs.

For example, class actions are one of the primary ways to stop fraud in the stock market. If an officer of a corporation falsifies the corporation financial results, and the corporation stock price is inflated by several cents, each stock purchaser may not have incentive to recover the small amount that they overpaid for the stock. With a class action, all of the stock purchasers can hold the officer liable for the fraud, and recover substantial damages.

I occasionally receive letters informing me of a class action brought on my behalf because of an alleged securities fraud. If not for the class action, I probably wouldn't be aware of the fraud, let alone have the ability to pursue a remedy.

So suing for $0.75 a piece on the behalf of millions of plaintiffs isn't necessarily trivial.

BUT

Plaintiffs (and plaintiffs' attorneys) ain't necessarily selfless heroes who accidentally stumble on to frauds and jump in to protect the proverbially little guy. Sometimes they manufacture dubious lawsuits intended to harass and annoy defendants with deep pockets, with the hope that the attorneys can score an easy settlement because the defendant wants to make them go away.

There's a couple of reasons to think this lawsuit is dubious.

First, I doubt the plaintiff independently "discovered" that Hilton's room charge included $0.75 for a paper, and was so outraged he went looking for a lawyer to do justice for him. It doesn't take much web surfing to discover that:

1.) The plaintiff, Rodney Harmon, is a private investigator in Citrus Heights, a suburb of Sacramento. Of course, there may be more than one Rodney Harmon in the Sacramento area, but I doubt it. Mr. Harmon was previously employed by a Sacramento criminal defense law firm as an investigator.

2.) The plaintiff's lawyers are members of The Arnold Law Firm, P.C., a Sacramento personal injury law firm that has a substantial practice in class action lawsuits.

3.) For those who don't know how the game is played, personal injury lawyers extensively use private investigators.

Hmm. Think that the plaintiff and his attorneys had a pre-existing professional relationship? That the plaintiff's attorneys went looking for a plaintiff to sue Hilton and called on their buddy Rodney; or maybe he went to them and literally sold them the lawsuit idea?

Not that that undermines the legal basis for the lawsuit, but it definitely sets a sleazy, ambulance-chasing tone.

Second, and most importantly, the plaintiff's complaint is just weak. Despite the rhetorical flourishes describing Hilton's distribution of newspapers as the "SCHEME" (oh, dear, it must be bad!), and the ridiculous and irrelevant heavy breathing about the environment (it's for the trees!) the plaintiff just doesn't have a case.

Despite all the excessive verbiage, plaintiff's case boils down to a simple claim of fraud. So, um, where's the fraud?

The plaintiff purchased the use of a hotel room. Hilton disclosed the room rate, $119, to which plaintiff agreed. Hilton did not charge him separately for a newspaper, and did not surreptitiously add the price of the newspaper to the quoted room rate. Hilton did offer to reimburse $0.75 of the room rate if he specifically requested not to receive the newspaper. Still, he paid exactly what he agreed to pay for the room. So how was plaintiff misled? What did Hilton say that was misleading? untrue? unfair?

Nothing. And all the heavy breathing and slinging of statute citations doesn't make the fraud claim more credible.

This case is silly not because the paper was worth $0.75, but because the plaintiff has made no factual allegation that supports his claim of fraud.

Why would you, unless it's your first time ever staying in a hotel, assume it's free? Do you assume the stuff in the minibar is free?

The last two times I have stayed at hotel the paper has been free - at least included in the price and not itemized. Only once or twice do I recall being charged for paper. One even charged me a delivery fee. Of course, most the time I have stayed at extremely cheap places that don't provide paper at all...you have to walk to the paper box across the street at Denny's.

The mini-bar has never been free.

No, you don't always have to litigate, even if you're a multi-millionaire world-famous actress with a rent-controlled apartment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/nyregion/faye-dunaway-says-she-cant-be-evicted-shes-moved-out.html?_r=1&hp

Dale, everything you say is pretty much true. It looks like a setup. But that doesn't have to be sleazy. Rosa Parks was a setup too. She didn't "just happen" to refuse to sit at the back of the bus and get arrested, it was planned. Of course, it was the sort of thing that happened all the time - but this was about setting up a "perfect case" (in this instance, for publicity not legal reasons of course). In real life, people get angry, excited, abusive, misremember facts, etc. All those things muddy the waters when it comes to court.

Ok, in this example the motive is a little less high-minded - but we could paraphrase Adam Smith on that, and say that we are depending not on the benevolence but the self interest of the law firm to provide for us. In this case by stopping the practice of delivering something unasked, charging for it, and relying on the majority of customers not wanting to complain.

I hate to defend the class action system given how badly it has been misused, but if the facts available here are true, this is pretty much what it's for. You shouldn't have to opt-out of a purchase.

If it was included in the room fee, well, fine, that's ok. That's like the meal on a flight, take it or leave it. But the article does imply it was a separate itemized charge, which strengthens the case. I think the environmental angle is a stupid diversion from the main point though.

Plus, this has a wider implication than just newspapers. Hotels do this with all sorts of stuff. Recently I stayed at a fairly classy hotel with a friend, we went out for dinner one night and it was raining, so we borrowed an umbrella. They said there was a deposit, I said fine. We brought it back on our return. On checkout the next day, there was a $40 charge for the deposit, which they had "forgotten" to remove. Also daily $25 charges for parking. My friend explained to them that when she booked she asked if they provided parking, and they had answered yes without mentioning it was an extra charge. So she told them they can't charge for it if they haven't stated that upfront. You can't assume that people will "just know" that of course it will be extra. At least where I live, that's an illegal practice. The upshot was they reversed $115 of the bill. So although the newspaper example looks trivial, the flow on effects could be substantial.

I've often wondered how hotels get away with this stuff. There's a reason that shopkeepers are required to say out loud the amount you owe them, even if it's plainly visible on the till in front of you. I'm talking from the point of view of Australian law of course, but there are similar consumer protection laws in many jurisdictions.

Funnily enough, credit card surcharges are legal and common here.

LTW, I'm not trying to give you a hard time, because you haven't been at all presumptuous. This is sincere curiousity. The vast majority of Americans wouldn't know what you're talking about regarding Rosa Parks. How is it that an Aussie knows better?

Put another way: There's probably a Rosa of the Aborigine, but I have no idea who she is.

"you cannot charge people extra for using a credit card"

This provision in the contract terms is, by good legal advice, probably illegal and unenforceable. The problem is: what merchant has the time and money to find out? This is only accepted by merchants, because Mastercard/Visa are pretty much a monopoly (ok, duopoly). Big customers are less interested, because they get better rates - it's the little merchants that get screwed.

One "could" make a fuss about the newspaper charge on his bill.

But lets be realistic about it. They could just bundle it into the price of the room and charge extra without putting it on the bill.

Any way you slice it, this particular lawsuit is frivolous.

But seriously, who takes the time to file a lawsuit over .75???

Remember when your mother used to say: "Don't waste XXX. It doesn't grow on trees!"

Paper grows on trees.

Ltw:

Rosa Parks did not manufacture a controversy for pecuniary gain. She wasn't someone who earned her living by suing other people.

The plaintiff in this case most probably is an agent for his attorneys, who stand to make a tidy profit if and when they can get this lawsuit past a motion to dismiss. You're comparing apples to oranges.

we could paraphrase Adam Smith on that, and say that we are depending not on the benevolence but the self interest of the law firm to provide for us.

True, but I think we should be more cautious to take self-interested actions at face value. In this case, the plaintiff and his attorneys are manufacturing a conflict with Hilton in order to generate legal fees. We should have a more critical eye on the legal theories put forward by such a "SCHEME".

If it was included in the room fee, well, fine, that's ok.

Read the plaintiff's complaint-- that's exactly what it alleges. Hilton quoted him a room rate of $119 a night, and that's what he paid. He did not "pay extra" for the paper. Hilton did offer a credit to him of $0.75 if he declined the paper, but he paid exactly what he agreed to pay for the room. Where's the fraud?

But the article does imply it was a separate itemized charge, which strengthens the case.

That's because the article was spoon-fed to the journalist by the plaintiff's lawyers. The complaint, however, is a sworn legal document. If the lawyers make knowingly false statements in a complaint, they are subject to professional discipline and possible criminal prosecution. So, despite all the spinning, the complaint admits that the plaintiff wasn't charged for the paper in addition to the agreed-upon room rate.

This case is NOT about hotels charging customers "fees" in addition to the quoted room rate.

Crid - no offence taken at all. I read voraciously and widely is all, and have a pretty good memory - now with extra Google/Wikipedia! Although I didn't have to look that one up. The closest Aboriginal equivalent I can think of in the 'test case' sense is Eddie Mabo (actually he was a Torres Strait Islander I think, but that distinction doesn't mean much) who won a landmark land rights case in the 80s which established a precedent for native title. Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone who was actually arrested to draw notice to inequities. Of course, despite a lot of individual and institutional racism, we never had many specific laws segregating Aborigines in the first place to protest against.

Dale - I only skimmed the article, so I was basing my remarks only on that. What you say makes sense.

Why would you, unless it's your first time ever staying in a hotel, assume it's free? Do you assume the stuff in the minibar is free?

If the Hilton followed the usual hotel procedure, the newspaper was left outside his door in the morning. The mini-bar is usually quasi-locked with a big honkin' sign that says in essence "the stuff in here is not free."

If they asked him in the morning if he wanted a paper and let him know it would be 75¢, then it's his own fault he got charged and he should have paid it.

I've stayed at hotels that provided the paper free of charge and ones that charged. When they charged and I said no, they didn't leave one outside my door in the morning.

If the plaintiff's story is accurate, this sounds like a mighty petty way for a major hotel chain to make a little extra money. At 1,000 hotels with 200,000 guest-days every week, this can add up to over $50,000 per week for the chain (assuming the paper cost the hotel 50¢). That's about $2.5 million a year.

On the other hand, did it really need to be litigated? Did the rest of us really have to be involved?

How hard is it to tell the clerk to take the charge off the bill because you didn't agree to it beforehand and were not notified that it would be added to your bill?

This case is nothing but a lawyer seeking a big payout. We have way too many John-Edwards-like lawyers right now.

LTW-- Thanks for that. The fluency of distant peoples in United States culture is a point of fascination for me... One by which no offense is intended, especially in your case! You've done the reading on some of our best people in our most shameful contexts, and aren't being presumptuous about it anyway.

Amy's international visitors, often including but not limited to the Canadians, seem to get so drunk on our narratives that they imagine themselves to be part of them, demanding consultation in plot points.

You'll have noticed that Americans don't always return the curiosity. PJ O'Rourke had a sterling metaphor for this, paraphrased: 'America is a stunningly beautiful 20-year-old woman and the rest of the world is a 14-year-old boy, hopelessly in love, whom she doesn't even know is alive.'

> If there's something there other than a
> room charge, dispute it...like a grownup!

Exactly. Spartee's rambling disquisition at first seems inane, and quickly turns pathetic.

There are people out there who sincerely believe that we can change this planet into an administrative paradise where no one would dare try to cheat a busy redhead out of six bits.

Or maybe they don't believe that... But as attorneys being paid deep six figures to counsel fools in adjudication, they need the man on the street to believe such a world exists. So the redhead, neither (apparently) wealthy nor profligate, must have her three quarters described as "a honking big pile of money".

Spartee: Don't be part of the problem. Every child who survives their first sunset was born with a backbone, and should be expected to use it.

Love the P.J. quote Crid. One of my heroes. I just hope I don't settle down and get respectable the way he has in my old age...