FTC’s Lina Khan Takes Aim At Sneaky Fees On Her Way Out The Door
from the be-transparent-about-ripping-me-off dept
I’ve covered the cable TV and broadband industries for a long while, and for the vast majority of that time, U.S. regulators have looked the other way while companies rip consumers off with hidden fees. At some point the U.S. just decided that this type of false advertising was a form of acceptable creativity.
And while the efforts weren’t always consistent, the Biden administration really did try to make a difference on this front. The Biden FCC tried to mandate more clarity in broadband and cable TV pricing, so your broadband company couldn’t rip you off with “internet cost recovery fees,” “regulatory recovery fees,” and other bullshit that lets them falsely advertise a lower rate.
And over at the Lina Khan FTC, they’ve finalized rules requiring that hotels and ticket sellers itemize bullshit fees (and the full cost of service) right up front at the point of sale. Though even here, with an FTC routinely blasted as “too aggressive,” there are a whole bunch of caveats and carve outs:
“The FTC’s rules still allow companies to impose fees, so long as they are clearly displayed. The agency also focused its prohibition on just the lodging and live-event industries, not the fuller array of firms — from airlines to internet giants — that have similarly stoked public anger.”
Note the agency voted 4-1 in favor of these new rules, with the one dissenting voice being Andrew Ferguson, Trump’s incoming FTC boss. It’s extremely unlikely Ferguson will actually enforce the rules, given that, like most Trump 2.0 officials, his focus will be on gutting most consumer protections (you, know, populism!) and harassing trans people or companies that don’t kiss Trump ass.
Should we someday return to any era resembling competent regulatory governance, it might be nice to remember that FCC and FTC efforts to crack down on fees are nice, but transparency isn’t enough. Making companies be clear about the fact they’re ripping you off doesn’t stop them from ripping you off.
Most of these fees are outright false advertising and should be banned outright. Many of them are the result of a lack of competition, which wouldn’t be as much of a problem if the U.S. government actually took antitrust reform and merger review seriously and applied it consistently across industries.
For the scattered antitrust reform cases the FTC filed, the agency lacks the funds or resources (quite intentionally) to truly tackle the country’s consolidated monopoly problems. And while the FCC nibbled around the edges of the problem (with things like broadband “nutrition labels“) the agency lacked the backbone to even publicly criticize telecom monopoly power itself.
But those efforts will look positively courageous compared to what’s coming during Trump 2.0. Emboldened by a corrupt Supreme Court, the second administration will gut consumer protections and weaponize government to harass administration critics, while endlessly allowing the kind of mindless consolidation that causes these kinds of predatory behaviors to begin with.
Trump 2.0, unconstrained about concerns of re-election, will be a greatest hits of terrible ideas making most existing problems much worse, and absolutely none of it is going to be subtle.
Filed Under: broadband, concerts, consumers, fees, ftc, prices, regulators, tickets
Comments on “FTC’s Lina Khan Takes Aim At Sneaky Fees On Her Way Out The Door”
I’ve known of Lina Khan for a very short time, but I have to say I appreciate their effort to try and make changes on this front that the FTC seemingly hasn’t in eons.
We could’ve had her for longer I imagine, had the election gone differently. It’s such a shame..
Re:
Oh, come on. Just because someone is “trying” to make changes doesn’t automatically make them a hero. Lina Khan may be taking a different approach, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right one. Just because you haven’t noticed change in the FTC doesn’t mean the system is broken or stagnant—it’s a massive, complicated institution. Sure, she has some bold ideas, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that her tenure would have solved all the issues in a few months. And honestly, the “we could’ve had her longer if the election went differently” line is just wishful thinking. Politics is full of unpredictability—there’s no guarantee that her vision would’ve been better than what we’ve had.
Re: Re:
That was a whole lot of strawmen in a single paragraph.
Something would’ve been better than what has been the status quo for several years, and nobody’s thinking that she would’ve solved everything.
Re: Re:
Congratulations. You’ve made not just a strawman but a straw army.
No one called Lisa Khan “a hero”.
No one said her approach is the right one.
No one said the system isn’t broken or stagnant.
No one said her tenure would have solved all the issues in a few months. (On the contrary, the original comment implies that she might have needed a few more years to effect any real changes.)
No one said that her vision was guaranteed to be better than what we’ve had.
What was being appreciated was that she was making an honest attempt to at least try to make things at least marginally better, and it’s possible things could be better than they are now if she was given a few more years. Even at a generous reading, it doesn’t even come close to praising her as a hero.
Re: Re:
Nobody mentioned heroes. Someone appreciated some effort and hoped there could be more.
The worst art gallery would not go for that framing, you might want to look for a different job.
He’s focusing on free speech, not free fees.
And since its own definition of “free speech” is to silent minorities and poor people (so, the majority), he’ll certainly defend fees much better than speech.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Oh, really? You’re going to lump “free speech” and “fees” together as if they’re somehow mutually exclusive? Let’s not pretend like fighting for “free speech” doesn’t have its place in the grand scheme of things. The idea that he’ll focus on defending fees more than speech is a massive oversimplification. If you’re going to criticize someone, at least acknowledge the complexity of the situation. You’re assuming his stance without even considering the nuances of his actions. Plus, this whole “silencing minorities and poor people” claim is incredibly loaded and speculative. It’s not like he’s single-handedly suppressing voices—there’s a lot more going on in any regulatory decision. Maybe try focusing on the specific policies rather than throwing around vague, inflammatory accusations.
Re: Re:
It’s not an assumption, and there’s no nuance to his actions: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/11/incoming-ftc-chair-i-will-stop-all-these-investigations-that-i-falsely-claim-are-politically-motivated-in-order-to-launch-my-own-openly-politically-motivated-investigations/
Re: Re:
I mean, the guy says he’s going to shut down a bunch of investigations and gut regulations as FTC chair. It’s hardly speculation.
Also, while the OP never said that “free speech” and “fees” are mutually exclusive, nor were they lumping them in together, it’s worth noting that calling two things mutually exclusive is the precise opposite of “lumping [them] together”.
Fighting for actual free speech is important and has its place. Fighting for “freeze peach” isn’t and doesn’t.
Plus, except when companies are using the government to suppress speech (like in non-disparagement clauses meant to prevent negative reviews), it’s not really the FTC’s job to protect free speech, so while fighting for free speech has its place in the grand scheme of things, that place isn’t really the FTC.
The OP never said he would do that. The point is that he’s going to focus on defending what he calls “free speech” over protecting consumers from fees. And since his version of “free speech” is so backwards, this means that the effect of his policies will result in a better defense of fees than actual free speech. You’re conflating his focus with the results.
You haven’t exactly articulated any nuances in his actions to consider, nor has he demonstrated any nuance. Also, you completely ignored the nuances in the OP’s comment, so you’re kinda being hypocritical here.
Not really. The policies he’s supporting would have the effect of silencing minorities and poor people based on how things have worked in the past with similar policies. It’s also par for the course for conservatives. That’s hardly speculative.
Is it loaded language? Maybe, but I think that implies more subtlety on the OP’s part than is actually present; I wouldn’t call a direct accusation “loaded”.
No one said he’d be doing anything “single-handedly”.
Not always, and sometimes the other stuff isn’t all that important or only makes things worse.
I’m sorry that a brief online comment isn’t going into as much detail as you’d prefer.
What a weird time to live in that “companies will now be required to tell you how much something costs before selling it to you” is something we have to fight for.
Re:
What did you expect under capitalism? This is why we need to be communist, comrade!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Oh, where to begin with this disjointed, over-dramatized mess of an article that clearly aims to fire up frustration while failing to provide any substantial insight. While it’s true that the issue of hidden fees, particularly in broadband and hospitality industries, is a legitimate and growing concern, this piece falls into the trap of emotional outrage without offering any real solutions or coherent analysis. In fact, this so-called “critique” feels like little more than a cheap shot at Lina Khan’s efforts and the broader work being done to tackle consumer exploitation. Let’s break this down, shall we?
First of all, the opening paragraph frames the problem of hidden fees in the U.S. as if this was some kind of underdog battle against a cabal of corporate evil-doers, and while there is merit in pointing out the exploitation by companies, this feels like an oversimplification for the sake of sensationalism. The reality is far more nuanced than just some “passive” regulators standing idly by. For years, companies like cable and broadband providers have, indeed, been able to sneakily pad their bills with a slew of fees that weren’t upfront, and it’s not exactly fair to blame the regulators for this oversight. The blame also lies with the culture of corporate greed that has deeply permeated industries, where the customer is treated as an afterthought. So, kudos to the regulators (particularly Lina Khan and the Biden administration) for at least trying to address it.
Let’s also talk about the lazy framing of the issue at hand. The article scoffs at the transparency rule changes made by Lina Khan’s FTC, but rather than celebrate the progress that’s being made, the writer seems to revel in condemning the efforts as too small, too inadequate. Sure, the author brings up a valid point that transparency alone won’t stop companies from ripping consumers off, but why not acknowledge that these transparency rules are at least a step forward? Sure, there are “carve-outs” in the new rules — but that’s part of the regulatory compromise process, not an outright failure. The FTC is a regulatory agency, not some omnipotent consumer protection force with the power to completely overhaul every problem in one fell swoop. Instead of recognizing the win here, this article just drowns in cynicism, doing little to build on the potential for future improvements.
Then there’s the complaint about the carve-outs themselves. The writer criticizes the FTC’s rules for only applying to the lodging and live-event industries, as though the agency should have tackled every single fee problem in existence with the stroke of a pen. Really? That’s a perfect way to undermine the credibility of regulatory bodies by demanding perfection before they even take action. The truth is that the FTC has limited resources and can only do so much at once. Starting with some of the most egregious offenders—like hotels and ticket sellers—is a reasonable approach. But instead of acknowledging the fact that the agency is chipping away at a massive problem, the article bemoans the lack of immediate, universal change. It’s a complete disregard for incremental progress.
And let’s not forget the passive-aggressive jab at Andrew Ferguson, the incoming FTC chair under a potential second Trump administration. Yes, it’s a politically charged point, but the piece takes it to an absurd level by forecasting doom and gloom for all consumer protections, even though there is no way to predict exactly how things will unfold. It’s entirely speculative, biased, and more focused on indulging in partisan sniping than on offering an honest assessment of what could actually happen. Sure, it’s fun to imagine the worst-case scenario, but it doesn’t offer any constructive critique or balanced analysis.
Now, let’s get into the biggest flaw of this article: the hypocrisy. The writer lambasts the system for allowing these predatory behaviors to persist, yet fails to fully address one of the root causes of this issue—market consolidation. Companies become more emboldened in their exploitation when there’s a lack of competition, and the article briefly touches on this but doesn’t go into depth. If the writer truly wants to solve the problem of sneaky fees, why not demand a deeper examination of the monopoly power that enables these companies to charge whatever they want? Instead, it seems the critique is just a platform to complain about the symptoms without truly digging into the systemic issues. Is it really too much to ask for a little substance here?
Finally, the article’s conclusion feels like a complete cop-out. It ends with a dire, overblown prediction about a second Trump administration gutting consumer protections, without offering any concrete analysis or solution. The future might very well be bleak in terms of consumer rights, but this article just feels like a sensationalized, partisan rant rather than a thoughtful examination of how to fix a broken system.
In short, this article contributes little to the conversation except for frustration and inflammatory rhetoric. Instead of offering a detailed critique of the FTC’s work and its limitations, it settles for cheap shots that do nothing to foster real understanding or spark meaningful change. If you want to see real progress, it’s not enough to point fingers and shout about how everything is broken. A real discussion on hidden fees needs to address all the complex factors, including government policy, corporate power, and regulatory reform, without resorting to lazy cynicism or partisan grandstanding.
Re: Fight Fire with Fire
The response provided illustrates several issues inherent to an LLM-generated critique. Below is a succinct critique of why this type of comment is problematic:
Lack of Specificity: While verbose, the critique fails to engage with specific arguments or examples from the article, instead resorting to generalized dismissals and sweeping statements, which undermine its analytical value.
Overuse of Emotional Language: Phrases like “disjointed, over-dramatized mess” and “lazy cynicism” suggest a bias and an attempt to discredit the article through tone rather than evidence. This detracts from the objectivity expected in constructive criticism.
False Equivalencies: The response mischaracterizes the article’s critique of incrementalism as an unreasonable demand for perfection. This straw man approach distorts the original argument, reducing the opportunity for meaningful engagement.
Excessive Length: The lengthy response obscures its points through unnecessary repetition and verbosity, making it less accessible and harder to parse for readers.
Lack of Original Insight: Despite criticizing the article for not offering solutions, the comment does not propose substantive alternatives or nuanced approaches, mirroring the very flaw it critiques.
Speculative Arguments: Accusations of partisanship and doom-and-gloom predictions from the article are addressed through equally speculative counterarguments, which do not advance the conversation.
Superficial Engagement with Nuance: While acknowledging the complexity of issues like market consolidation and regulatory limitations, the response glosses over these factors without adding depth, failing to model the thoughtful engagement it demands.
In sum, this critique exemplifies the pitfalls of overzealous, unbalanced responses, particularly when generated by LLMs that aim to simulate debate without fully understanding context or prioritizing clarity and constructive dialogue.
Re:
Did you get an A for your school essay hun?
Re:
Uh, no. How did you come to that conclusion? It reads to me like it is complimenting her efforts while also pointing out that it isn’t that much and likely will be repealed in a month or so.
Notably, nothing in the rest of this paragraph contradicts this framing at all. It looks to me like you’re just taking shots at them for no reason.
No one said it was just regulators standing by.
Uh, yeah. Obviously.
It seems rather hypocritical to accuse them for “lazy framing” while simultaneously lazily framing the article yourself.
They did. It’s like you only bothered to read the more critical parts of the article while ignoring the complimentary parts.
Again, no one says otherwise.
All of them? No. However, it is still reasonable to point out or even criticize the significant limitations.
Dude, you read way too much into way too little. At the same time, given what Ferguson has done in the past and what he says he will do in the future, they aren’t exactly absurd predictions to make.
First, you’re asserting bias and partisanship without presenting any evidence or arguments to support either contention. Second, remember that the assessment in question boils down to the fact that Andrew Ferguson—who voted against this decision—is unlikely to enforce this regulation. I fail to see how that is even remotely speculative and not “an honest assessment of what could actually happen.”
Notably, even if I accept literally every other word in your comment as true (aside from this one sentence), including stuff that comes after this sentence, none of it would support an accusation of any hypocrisy in this article on the part of the article. None of it suggests any sort of double standard or “do as I say, not as I do” attitude. I don’t think you know what “hypocrisy” actually means, or if you do, you are terrible at arguing.
Dude, there are loads of articles saying all of those things on this site. Not every single article on this site about the system needs to go into great detail about the problems of market consolidation. This particular article is focused on one aspect to make it easier to read and not overly long. Other articles go into more detail.
Given that the incoming administration has promised to gut consumer protections, that’s hardly an “overblown” prediction.
As for concrete analyses or solutions, again, there are other articles that go into more detail about that sort of thing. Though, really, why you’d expect a blog to be offering concrete solutions is beyond me.
Actually, much of your criticism seems to be that you wanted this article to do little more than be a repeat of what they’ve already said multiple times in great detail in other articles. Why should they have to restate all of that stuff in this article? Different articles have different focuses. This one is primarily about specific efforts by a specific member of the FTC. There is no reason for it to go into detail about other topics.
As much as I feel this rule is probably actually required by contract laws, and should be duplicative, judges are remarkably okay with throwing away basic tenants of contract law when it comes to hidden fees.
I fear with an all Republican controlled government they will use the Congressional Review Act to not only block this rule, but will also prevent the FTC from considering any rules regarding this forever – until Congress stops being a bunch of corporate lapdogs. Good luck with the latter.
Re:
TIL: People can rent contract laws to live in.