FTC Pushes New Rule To Try And Kill Bullshit ‘Junk Fees’
from the *prices-may-be-significantly-higher-than-they-initial-appear dept
As a reporter who has covered telecom for the better part of two decades, I’ve spent much of that time watching broadband giants like AT&T and Comcast sock their captive customers with a wide variety of bullshit, sneaky fees designed to help them advertise one price, then charge you with a higher rate. It’s a practice that nets them billions of dollars annually.
At the same time I’ve watched the agency purportedly in charge of telecom and media issues (the FCC) stumble around like a drunken halfwit when it comes to holding anybody accountable for the practice. Most of the FCC’s focus has been on demanding transparency; as in, they think it’s ok for companies to rip you off, companies just have to be clear about the fact they’re ripping you off at the point of sale.
That’s treating the symptom but not the underlying disease, which is usually market failure, a lack of competition, mindless consolidation, and monopoly power. You generally can’t get away with socking your customers with a bunch of nonsensical surcharges if those customers have competitive alternatives.
Of course the practice of bullshit fees isn’t isolated to the telecom industry. The airline, hotel, concert, and real estate rental industries also routinely sock you with such bogus surcharges. Occasionally agencies like the FTC will take a swing at the practice under the “unfair and deceptive” component of the FTC Act, which requires a fairly high burden of proof and is a little vague when it comes to onerous fees.
So the FTC says it’s considering a new rule specifically designed to attack junk fees:
You’ll want to read the proposed Rule for the specifics, but a central focus of the rulemaking is to prohibit hidden or falsely advertised fees by requiring advertised prices to include mandatory charges and by expressly prohibiting misrepresentations about the nature, purpose, or amount of fees.
For example, the rule the FTC is proposing would state, “It is an unfair and deceptive practice and a violation of this part for any Business to offer, display, or advertise an amount a consumer may pay without Clearly and Conspicuously disclosing the Total Price.” (The capitalized words have specific definitions in the FTC’s proposal.) Is that proposed prohibition clear and understandable? Is it ambiguous in any way? What do you think?
It’s a good start. If you want to share your thoughts with the FTC, you can find instructions here.
But just cracking down on junk fees isn’t enough. In telecom and broadband, big ISPs like Comcast can get away with bullshit fees because their captive customers have no competitors to flee to. That means this kind of crackdown needs to be accompanied with the kind of meaningful, cross-sector antitrust reform our corrupt Congress isn’t interested in (despite many recent political performances on this front).
Without it, your airline or broadband provider can just roll these glorified price hikes back into the advertised rate. They’re still ripping you off with inflated prices thanks to industry consolidation, they’re just being slightly more honest about it at the point of sale. So you also need both antitrust reform, and the kind of competent, thoughtful merger review that’s uncharacteristic for U.S. regulators who increasingly see their authority chipped away by a radically rightward lurching Supreme Court.
Still, just the fact that we have regulators actually thinking about how to tackle this problem is a step in the right direction. For decades U.S. regulators have made it abundantly clear that it’s fine if companies rip you off with obnoxious surcharges and nonsensical fees — provided they’re modestly creative about it. Asking them to illustrate up front just how badly you’re going to be screwed is the least we can do.
Filed Under: antitrust reform, consumer protection, fees, ftc, junk fees, surprise fees, unfair and deceptive


Comments on “FTC Pushes New Rule To Try And Kill Bullshit ‘Junk Fees’”
Optional Fees Optional Payment
Any non-tax “fees” should be optional, and ought not need to be paid by the customer.
If the service no longer works as advertised without the optional fees, then apparently it was essential, and should have been included in the core price. Charging a separate fee for an essential part of the service should be considered fraud.
Also, any fees listed as being either a tax, or mandated by government, and then not remitted in its entirety is considered to be tax fraud.
Re:
In the past one had to pay for use of public restroom stall, optionally there was usually one free stall that was never cleaned.
Re:
Your mention of “non-tax” suggests your view is clouded by you being American. Taxes are essential too, in that it’s generally illegal to offer a good or service without them. In most other countries, it’d therefore be illegal to quote a price without them.
Americans, though, get very apologetic about the idea, saying things like “but how could a restaurant advertise a dollar-menu nationwide if taxes vary everywhere?” Well, labor costs in Washington (state or D.C.) are about triple those of Georgia, and somehow that doesn’t stop them.
Re: Re:
I think you may have missed something in translation. they were talking about non-tax fees for most of the post.
the only thing said about taxes and other govt mandated fees is that they should be collected and reported correctly or it would be considered fraud.
Re: Re: Re:
They were making the point about the exclusion of taxes. Most sane countries require the listing of the full price, including tax.
Another idea on how to the prevent the “rolling in” of the previous BS fees, the Rule should declare the basic fee to be whatever was advertised on Sept 30, 2023 as the “You Pay Only” price that was advertised in public presentations. Alternatively, if the “You Pay Only” text is not actually meaningfully stated like that, then the dollar price advertised in the largest font should be made the basic price.
All of this should exclude even those disclaimers in lawyer-sized font (damned tiny) that say ‘does not include additional fees’ – the basic price is all the company needs to deliver the promised service.
And finally, any increase to that basic price for the first two years should be subject to agency scrutiny.
Lets add
All the phone companies.
Even as a kid, (mother let me do the bills), The charges changed monthly and Randomly. Finding any reason to add a charge, then Wait to see if the gov. wanted it?
I even called a few times to ASK, WHAT IS THIS. And no one knew, or had Patent answers.
Loved it when they Forced them to allow ANYONE to make and USE any companies Phone, NOT JUST the Phone company one, THEN CHARGE FOR IT
Hear about the Monthly fee a person paid for about 30 years for a Company phone? it was a nice phone, but not worth more then $100.
How about the Tax, they decided Never to ask the gov. about, even after 100 years.
How about goto a nearby town, and Check a friends Phone bill, and it has Different Fee’s.
The WORST PART?? THE STATES DIDNT KNOW WHAT TO DO EITHER.
Re: well ATT and others
ya TD forgot to signin.
You have to give it to ATT, they’re running an ad where the ATT spokesperson, is on a jet and people are complaining about added fees, because like ATT, never does that stuff.
Biggest pair ever and the spokesperson is a woman.
Re:
spokespeople are just like members of congress, you pay them and they say whatever you want them to.
well that didn't take long
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/10/t-mobile-switches-users-to-pricier-plans-and-tells-them-its-not-a-price-hike/
Tmobile wasting no time before the FTC finishes gathering data.
Coming soon, the fee consolidation fee
Gotta get all that money back into one account.
Don't worry. kids will get to learn about fees in college.
Not to be outdone, it seems colleges are actively participating in the junk fee frenzy. So newly minted adults will soon get to experience the documentation fees, admin fees, fees for payment processing, several flavors of activity fees, (my favorite) a system-wide fee (um…?), a few facility fees, dining fees, lab fees, resident hall fees, transportation fees…. How’s that for an education?
Re: well?
My mother had me doing the bills and reconciling the bank, When I was in early teens.
ALSO reading all the Crap making promises and finding the loop holes. And after 60+ years I wonder HOW no one in my local family Ever won the PCH.(would really love to figure out how they are doing that. I know most of it, but How many Drawings per year? 1,2,4,6 or 12?)
Junk law created junk fees
Let’s not pass over the fact that most of these “junk” fees are actual costs imposed upon providers by the government.
Nonsense like being forced to carry local stations AND being forced to pay those stations regardless of user use. Up front
Or regional sports fees. Or service taxes. Etc.
Most of these fees are the fault of local and federal laws that harm the consumer.
It would be nice to have a flat rate. The full cost up front. All purchases should be the full price up front. Be it cable tv or bread.