Blockbuster Settles No Late Fee Suit

fistfullast33l writes "In a followup to a previous Slashdot story, Blockbuster has settled a lawsuit with 47 states and the District of Columbia over its No Late Fees advertising campaign. The New York State Attorney General's Office released the following: 'The Attorneys General alleged that the advertising campaign launched in late December 2004 was misleading because it failed to clearly disclose that, seven days after a movie or game's return due date, the consumer would be charged its selling price if the item were not yet returned. The Attorneys General also alleged there was insufficient disclosure that not all Blockbuster franchise stores were participating, leaving customers of those stores wrongly believing that they, too, would not have to pay late fees.' Blockbuster will be refunding customers as part of the deal." Additional commenary available on MSNBC.

Comments

Late fees indeed

[Bifurcati]

Guess that's some serious late fees for Blockbuster!

Re:Late fees indeed

[Tackhead]

> Guess that's some serious late fees for Blockbuster!

It said "Blockbuster will be refunding customers as part of the deal". It didn't say when... :-)

Re:Late fees indeed

[Bifurcati]

Oops! You're right *grin* I should have included brackets: "That's some (seriously late) fees for Blockbuster". I won't hold my breath...At least they've settled, and won't be "appealing the decision" for the next 10 years until the refund is worthless (and no-one is there to claim it!) anyway.

Re:Late fees indeed

[dnoyeb]

Nor did it say how. Most likely the infamous 'vouchers.'

I like Spitzer. I would vote for him to clean out the White house. Special prosecutor like that guy they had chasing Bill Clinton around. But they got rid of him...

Re:Late fees indeed

[Chasuk]

...it failed to clearly disclose that, seven days after a movie or game's return due date, the consumer would be charged its selling price if the item were not yet returned.

I don't live anywhere near a Blockbuster, nor did I do any more than skim the contents of the advertising campaign when it came out, yet these details were sufficiently clear to me.

...also alleged there was insufficient disclosure that not all Blockbuster franchise stores were participating, leaving customers of those stores wrongly believing that they, too, would not have to pay late fees.

See my statement above; it applies in this case as well.

So, we penalize Blockbuster, who were trying to offer a service that I would have been glad to use had I lived within a reasonable distance from one of their outlets, because people are fucking stupid, or illiterate, or both?

This isn't news. This would have been news:

"American public too stupid to understand gist of simple advertising campaign. More news at 11:00."

Re:Late fees indeed

[Cylix]

When I initially saw the ad I thought there was going to be some grievous catch.

Being we don't have a Blockbuster anywhere near my location I didn't really need to look up the details.

That said, it was obvious the advertisement was going to be misleading. You cannot say "No Late Fees" and simply re-word how you charge someone.

It's still not a bad idea, but the wording needs to be honest. Maybe even go so far as an opt-in policy and run it as a "Try it and Buy it!" campaign.

Re:Late fees indeed

[don'tyellatme]

that is not funny...please mod it down. seriously.

Re:Late fees indeed

[don'tyellatme]

what part of NO LATE FEES says "seven days after a movie or game's return due date, the consumer would be charged its selling price"...exactly.

Re:Late fees indeed

[Chris Burke]

Granted I don't use Blockbuster and only saw their TV adds a couple times, but I did pay attention to the adds (since I was interested in what is clearly inspired by NetFlix competition) and that this wasn't actually "no late fees" wasn't clear to me at all.

Maybe I didn't see the asterisk on the huge text saying "No Late Fees", but also maybe you are full of shit.

Re:Late fees indeed

[Chasuk]

A "late fee" is a penalty for keeping the video out past the specified time. Blockbuster isn't charging a late fee, they are selling you the video according to a contractual agreement. An enormous difference, in my mind. With a "late fee," Blockbuster keeps the video and I am punished for my own sloth/stupidity/absent-mindedness.

This is the equivalent of the "you break it, you own it" policy in many stores. You knock over a dispaly of china and destroy it, you own it, and the ownership isn't even as attractive an option as Blockbuster offers, as you have only shards. With Blockbusters option -- which you didn't have to agree to -- you at least walk away with the merchandise.

Re:Late fees indeed

[Afrosheen]

The try-before-you-buy thing is actually already in use by Movie Trading Co., Blockbuster's baby brother company. All rental fees can go towards the full purchase price if you choose to buy the movie after you rent it. This way, you don't get gouged twice.

Re:Late fees indeed

[AftanGustur]

This is the equivalent of the "you break it, you own it" policy in many stores.

In that case, if the store would advertise, "You don't have to pay damages for things you break", yes, it would be equivalent since "Damages" is not the same as "paying for buying" the thing.

And in both cases it's "misleading" at it's best.

Re:Late fees indeed

[DanTMan]

It doesn't matter how WE are refunded. I just hope those poor lawyers get paid {said dripping with sarcasm}

Re:Late fees indeed

[hesiod]

> When I initially saw the ad I thought there was going to be some grievous catch.

I didn't. I know that Blockbuster charged a fucking arm & a leg just to rent a movie, so I thought they might be doing something to benefit the customer. Silly me, nothing is ever done to benefit the public.

Re:Late fees indeed

[Theaetetus]

A "late fee" is a penalty for keeping the video out past the specified time. Blockbuster isn't charging a late fee, they are selling you the video according to a contractual agreement. An enormous difference, in my mind. With a "late fee," Blockbuster keeps the video and I am punished for my own sloth/stupidity/absent-mindedness.

Not quite, but unfortunately, the article misses the major point: Blockbuster would charge you the full price of the movie after 7 days (not unreasonable) and when you return it, they would 'buy it back', removing the charge from your credit card minus a restocking fee. The "restocking fee" was, in reality, a late fee for keeping the movie past 7 days.

The difference is obvious when compared to Netflix - take a movie out, keep it for as long as you want, months even, and when you return it, there's no additional charge for keeping it too long. That's "no late fees". Blockbuster's version is "late fee with a different name".

Re:Late fees indeed

[isil]

Blockbuster is only responding to the Netflix phenomenon. The "No late fees" program from Blockbuster is really not that different than Netflix' program.

It says right there in the billing agreement for Netflix "... we are permitted to bill you ... movies you fail to return ..."

Now, a check of Blockbuster's own website gives you their terms.

The terms seem pretty clear to me. If I return a movie up to 7 days late, I will not be charged a late fee. If I return it 8 days late, I pay a $1.25 restock fee as if I returned a movie I didn't like.

Re:Late fees indeed

[ipxodi]

I'm not sure where you saw that Netflix will charge you for "late" movies. Checking their website just now, they only say they will charge you for outstanding rentals if you cancel the service. Nothing about charging you after any set amount of time. From their website:

Provided you continue to be a paying subscriber of our service, you may keep the DVDs delivered to you as long as you like. We do not impose any required return dates (other than upon cancellation of the service). Given that we have no required return dates, we do not charge any late fees. You will be required to return the movies within 7 days following any cancellation of the service or be subject to charge for unreturned DVDs...

Re:Late fees indeed

[trentblase]

Exactly. Plus, what's wrong with the business model of "you pay $x per day for the video... keep it as long as you're willing to pay the rental fee". Nothing's wrong with it, except I guess it's harder to screw customers with fine print. Usually I've very attuned to fine print but even I thought that this was the "no late fee" model they were adopting.

Re:Late fees indeed

[doyle.jack]

you at least walk away with the merchandise

No, you walk away with a license to watch the merchandise. As we have so clearly noted in past discussions, you don't actually own the movie... remember?

Re:Late fees indeed

[Maggott]

The real issue isn't whether they told you that there would be late fees; it's that they said there wouldn't. If you say there won't be late fees when there will, you're lying regardless of how many trailing asterisks you put next to it. (Attention American Advertisers: A footnote does not, in fact, excuse you from making a false factual statement. Troglodytes.)

The states' point seems to be that it's not legit for them to say "No late fees!" then charge money for movies that aren't returned on time. I sure as heckunz don't think changing the words they use to refer to the event legally constitutes changing the event.

In detail: If a late fee is defined as charging people money for not returning something on time, and blockbuster's new policy is to charge people money for not returning something on time, then their new policy is still a late fee. Ergo, when they say "No late fees!" yet still charge you money for returning something late, they've lied.

What they're doing amounts to the kind of legal defense that 5-year-olds use. "I didn't hit him! The stick did!"

But then, modern advertising has sickened me for a long time. They have done their best to reclassify the word "Lie" to mean something so specific that it is logically impossible to actually do, thus deciding they are free to intentionally and blatantly decieve all they want. Then they're shocked when people get pissed off. The simplest example? We live in a country where 100 out of 100 competing stores will state that they have the lowest prices on everything and nobody bats an eye--there's no district attorney general who acts on the fact that 99 out of those 100 are obviously lying. At this point people don't even consider the assertion "We have the lowest prices!" to be deceptive at all! (In my mind, it's simple enough--if you say something that isn't actually true, THAT'S WHAT A LIE IS. Ergo, if you use the word "Lowest Prices," and ANYONE has lower prices than you, you have lied. Is it that hard to understand? That if it's not actually true, it's still a lie, even if it's good for business!?)

In fact, it's even more humiliatingly stupid when you examine this specific case. It amounts to this.

Come to blockbuster! No late fees!*
* Late fees apply.

How can those two assertions POSSIBLY both be true? And guess what? If you make two mutually exclusive factual statements, you have made one false factual statement. Telling the truth does not negate telling a lie. And the fact that consumers can tell you are lying sure as F*** does not excuse it.

Re:Late fees indeed

[guy0089]

Alrite I would first like to say this, who the hell is dumb enough to believe that you can keep that movie as long as you want. I mean, Blockbuster would have 3 movies in it if that were the case( 2 copies of 'Gliter' and 1 copy of 'Cross Roads'). Now, they said "NO LATE FEES", what they are charging you is not a late fee. You see, if it were a late fee you would be giving the merchandise back and be paying them a small fee. HOWEVER, 7 days after the due date you will be charged the cost of the movie. Like someone else said...this is very much like the "You break it, you buy it" slogan. After you pay that fee, you keep the movie. This is called purchasing. \ Technically I know that a late fee is defined as charging people money for not returning something on time. I also know that, in a nut shell, you payed a late fee after those 7 days; but their is an obvious difference. It's all common sense. You purchased the movie. The purchasing is the key difference between a late fee and what Blockbuster charges you after 7 days. In the end, this marketing trick may have been a little deceptive to the average Joe, but all you need to do is pay attention and these marketing tricks won't trick you.

Re:Late fees indeed

[Maggott]

But if you return the movie after, say, 8 days, they refund the "Purchase Price" but charge you a $1.50 "restocking fee" (i.e, a late fee.) Thus, you are assessed a fee when you return the merchandise late, thus you have paid a late fee.

It's a semantic game. They can change the name of their late fees so they can turn around and claim they don't have any. But if it's money you pay because you returned something late, it doesn't matter if you call it "Cajun Fried Chicken"--it's STILL a late fee.

Sure, they may not succeed in tricking you if you pay attention, but that doesn't excuse the fact that they tried. I'm tired of having to assume everything anyone ever tells me is a lie with an asterisk by it. That's not the kind of world I want to live in.

Re:Late fees indeed

[guy0089]

I never did hear of the restocking fee up until now. I guess that with that fee the "NO LATE FEES" campaign is a bunch of bullshit.

Re:Late fees indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah but after you have had the item for 8 days and they charge you for the item you now own it it, it is no longer a rental. How can you get charged a late fee for a something you own.
There are many places that charge a restocking fee for purchases, this is just another example.

And this is important becuase...

[Nom du Keyboard]

And this is important to Slashdot readers who probably download their entertainment because...

Re:And this is important becuase...

[LewsTherinKinslayer]

And this is important to Slashdot readers who probably download their entertainment because...

Not everyone who reads /. does nothing with his spare time but download illegally pirated movies and warez programs. I imagine most readers are perfectly legitimate.

Re:And this is important becuase...

[Professor_UNIX]

And this is important to Slashdot readers who probably download their entertainment because...

Do you really waste hours of time downloading television programs and movies from the Internet? I've found it's much easier to just go rent a movie than to spend hours downloading some 8 gig DVD rip only to find it's gay porn some jackass put up with the same name as the movie I was looking for (which was not gay porn BTW). I guess I'm just getting old, but I have more money than time these days.

Re:And this is important becuase...

[StalinsNotDead]

I imagine most readers are perfectly legitimate.

And some are just bastards.

Re:And this is important becuase...

[CrackedButter]

HA! You are new here.

Re:And this is important becuase...

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. Wouldn't it be funny if parent post was being serious?

Re:And this is important becuase...

[ziggy_zero]

You know....you don't have to watch the little progress bar when you download stuff...you just kind of let it sit there for awhile on its own and you are free to do other things! Amazing, I know, but true.

Re:And this is important becuase...

[arcanumas]

I imagine most readers are perfectly legitimate.

Or at least have a sophisticated emergency plan involving encryption to plausibly claim they are legitimate :)

Re:And this is important becuase...

[Anonymous Coward]

And some of us just say we are becuse it makes us feal better then everyone else

Re:And this is important becuase...

[Deliveranc3]

Another reason why we shouldn't pay for anything....

there are still people on here telling us the industry is a bunch of lambs and we should be bending over for them.

Re:And this is important becuase...

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be really fucking stupid if you download some 8 gig DVD rip only to find it's gay porn. You know there are ways to preview what you are downloading? Apparantly you don't know. Also your internet connection must suck ass. I sometimes will download a whole ripped DVD while sitting at my computer drinking my coffee before work.

Re:And this is important becuase...

[Anonymous Coward]

yet another counterexample

Re:And this is important becuase...

[ZorbaTHut]

Personally, my technique tends to be "do search, hit download, allow other things to happen in my life for a few weeks". I'll often have a hundred things downloading at once, gradually, and every once in a while I'll open up my "completed" directory and decide what I'm in the mood to watch. Total time: fifteen seconds per file, with maybe fifteen seconds of annoyance if it turns out to be a fake (which, with the exception of porn, has never happened - and invariably it ends up being other porn of a similar style, and, hey, porn) with a lot of lag between when I decide I might be interested in a movie and when I actually get around to watching it. Which works.

Or rather, I did - I haven't really bothered lately, I get enough just with impulse DVD buys at Fry's. So hey.

Re:And this is important becuase...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, most of us do have lives...

On a completly unrelated note.. does anyone have a No-Activation crack for windows XP?

Re:And this is important becuase...

[Anonymous Coward]

*yawn* big words from a little anonymous coward.

Re:And this is important becuase...

[jephthah]

your IP addresses have been forwared.

Re:And this is important becuase...

[bfizzle]

Does that include recompiling the Gentoo kernel for the 50th time?

Re:And this is important becuase...

[Anonymous Coward]

you need better connections.

I got a nicy library(bigger than whats in the local equivalent of blockbuster over here) of films avalaible in ~10-20minutes of downloading.

Re:And this is important becuase...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny and all, but when I'd like to go see a movie, I really don't relish the thought of sitting there for anywhere from 8 hours to 8 days trying to download the dang thing, not to mention all the time spent hunting around for it. Not to mention you're trying to get the download finished so that you don't get left with a half-completed file, so anything else that's going to require your pipe (like playing a multiplayer game) is pretty much out.

I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say I don't do it, but I generally reserve my downloads for cases where the content in question is simply hard to find in the U.S. at all (think imports or cancelled TV shows), or I simply don't want to see that badly (think syndicated TV--you know sooner or later there'll be a re-run).

Movie rentals aren't that bad; if you want to watch a lot of movies a month, the flat rate plans these days work out pretty well per movie. I can't see myself renting TV episodes, though. Maybe it'll become common, but I kinda doubt it. What I really wish the suits in the entertainment industry would come up with is online broadcasting; the technology's certainly all there, it's just a huge political/legal/business problem at this point. I'd certainly pay a couple bucks for a direct stream of a single show I really want to see rather than the package deals you get from cable for some ungodly amount a month. Satellite seems to be a bit cheaper, but let's see some innovation, so-called creative types.

Re:And this is important becuase...

[anethema]

For tv..you sign up for a very nice torrent site like elitetorrents...then you set up your client (which should hopefully be azureus) with a rss plugin...then you just make a tv show regexp to match every show you want to see. Even sorts it into folders. Ive got the tv show on my hard drive hours before it airs here on the west coast. All in HDTV commercial free goodness.

For movies... go to isohunt.com put in the movie name, hit download. Come back 3-4 hours later and you have a movie. Works good when you download 5-6 movies at once that tickle your fancy and watch them at your leasure.

I have long ago cancelled my cable. Absolutly no reason to have it anymore.

Re:And this is important becuase...

[Havenwar]

Interesting post... but...

Seriously, you need to let life loose a bit, eh? not be so controlling. Not be so rushed and stressed.

This is how you do it:
Day one, watch what ever is downloaded, spend half an hour filling up downloadlist in emule and start the latest movies on download in bit-torrent.

Day two, watch the movie you downloaded from bit-torrent, check for better sources for some of the emule stuff. Start another torrent download.

Day three, watch the movie you downloaded by torrent, cancel half your emule downloads because you no longer feel like seeing them, swear at the gay porn that for some reason is very available and downloaded in five minutes, and add another list of downloads. Start two new torrent downloads, because friends will be over tomorrow.

Day four, never mind checking the mule, your friends might see the gay porn you just KNOW is in that last file completed. Just watch the two torrents.

Now, this could go on forever. If you replace emule with kazaa its the same thing, only you'll have to run an antivirus scan every day as well.

Emule brings stuff down slow but steady, torrent brings stuff down until the next day. The video store still means you have to get off your ass, go down there, spend money, and then go back if there is any problem with the disc or vhs. It's not that difficult... just need to get into the rhythm.

Oh yeah, and in sweden video stores dont have flat rates and stuff. it's generraly around... $2-3 per movie per day, or two for $5-6. That way downloading is really the only viable alternative... although I still rent movies some times when I visit friends. Unless I just throw a disc in the burner and fry whatever I got.

hopefully not gay porn.

Re:And this is important becuase...

[Havenwar]

hmmm... a DVD-rip of 8 gigs... what compression... UUENCODE?

I mean seriously... either he was talking about a DVD-R, in which case previewing is out of the case, or he just doesnt know anything about downloading in the first place.

Nah, what really bothers me about downloading is all that gay porn that I cant find because it is named "teletubbies go out" or "operah talks back episode 666"

Very annoying.

Re:And this is important becuase...

[Anonymous Coward]

case in point.

Re:And this is important becuase...

[kjcdude]

You know NOTHING about downloading movies or tv shows

Re:And this is important becuase...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they download porn!

Re:And this is important becuase...

[Anonymous Coward]

> I've found it's much easier to just go rent a movie than to spend hours downloading some 8 gig DVD rip only to find it's gay porn some jackass put up

That's fine, but what I hate more is when I'm looking for gay porn and some asshole posts the laserdisc Star Wars trilogy under the name "Backdoor Bros 25!"

Late Fee Paradox

[heauxmeaux]

If the late fees exceed the purchase cost of the media, can't i just keep it? I don't want to be caught by my grandmother while returning "Men Alone 2 - The K-Y Connection'

Re:Late Fee Paradox

[Godman]

The idea is that when you return it, you get a refund, but you still have to pay a "restocking fee"

Scenario: Consumer "Bob" rents movie "Incredibles" from Blockbuster.

2 weeks later, 1 week after due date. Blockbuster charges "Bob's" account $17.95 for "Incredibles"

1 week after that: "Bob" brings movie back. Blockbuster credits "Bob's" account for 17.95 minus a "restocking" fee for putting the movie back on the shelf.

Not "late fees" per se, but still extra clams to shell out.

Re:Late Fee Paradox

[heauxmeaux]

I still don't want to get caught with that disgusting movie.

Re:Late Fee Paradox

[B3ryllium]

You're thinking of "The Inedibles".

Re:Late Fee Paradox

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't quite understand how they get away with that restocking fee...which is clearly a late fee with an alias. Do you pay a restocking fee if you return the movie within a week? No? Then why do you have to pay a restocking fee after a week? Because it's....late. Hmm.

Re:Late Fee Paradox

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, late fees generally compound every day. The "restocking fee" is the same no matter if you're a week or a month late.

Re:Late Fee Paradox

[Anonymous Coward]

In defense to Blockbuster...but not to troll, the restocking fee is a set fee. It is not dependent on how late the movie is and so if you keep it for months on end and then choose to return it, you will only be out the fixed $1.25 (that's the fee in AZ). That would hardly be considered a "late fee".

If you look at it that way, you could consider renting the movie for $4, allow them to charge you the additional $17 (sale price is based on the DVD's "used" value), and then own it.....one day you can choose to "sell" it back to Blockbuster, and it will have only costed you $1.25. Not a bad ROI in my book. Try getting that much on eBay!

Re:Late Fee Paradox

[csimpkin]

Overall I think that the system is fair. In fact, it is something that I was saying should happen for a long time. I would get really pissed when I returned a movie two days late and the late fees combined with the original rental fee were enough to purchase the movie. My issue with this is if they clearly mark what they will charge you for the movie. Blockbuster regularly sells previously viewed movies at or below 10 dollars. I would hate to be charged the retail price of 20 dollars for a movie that they are selling in the store for 10 dollars.

Re:Late Fee Paradox

[InfiniteWisdom]

A minor nit, but a restocking fee is not a fee for putting the item back on the shelf... its a fee charged to compensate them for the cost of either buying more disks to ensure they have enough disks to meet anticipated demand, and thus ending up with more disks than they need once you actually do return it

I think they're well within their rights to charge this fee, (and its still way cheaper than what most people would have paid before) but they should be at least disclose the fees in the fine print on their big signs proclaiming "the end of late fees"

Re:Late Fee Paradox

[kd5ujz]

not exactly, with blockbuster, a month after the due date, you are stuck with the charges, you then HAVE to pay the $18.

Re:Late Fee Paradox

[OneFix]

You only have 30 days from the rental date to return it for their "restocking fee"...so, if you kept it for months on end as you suggest, you've simply bought the movie...

Re:Late Fee Paradox

[Kevin Mitnick]

that'd be a heavily censored porno if you had rented it at blockbuster... you're right you wouldn't be wanna be caught with it.

Re:Late Fee Paradox

[Theaetetus]

I think they're well within their rights to charge this fee, (and its still way cheaper than what most people would have paid before) but they should be at least disclose the fees in the fine print on their big signs proclaiming "the end of late fees"

Now announcing: THE END OF LATE FEES!
And also announcing: THE BEGINNING OF "RESTOCKING FEES"!

Makes sense to me.

Next suit: DVDs by mail

[nizo]

I keep looking in my mailbox, but there are no Blockbuster DVDs there. The ad shows random people pulling DVDs out of their mailboxes; this is clearly a case of false advertising!

Re:Next suit: DVDs by mail

[Bongo the Monkiii]

Seriously though, it's something to consider. The Blockbuster mail service, in my experience, has been something approaching a disaster. I didn't have good luck with Netflix either, but they were still better than Blockbuster's service.

I think it's high time companies started being held accountable for their business practices and started having to be responsible for their advertisements as well. Huzzah for the consumer backlash!

Re:Next suit: DVDs by mail

[jp10558]

Hmmm, I've had good luck with Netflix, especially now that they have a bunch of distribution centers around the US. They also worked with me when an unscrupulous mail carrier kept stealing the disks we were mailing back, rather than just charging us for 4 lost disks in a row.

Once they talked to their mail contacts, and we talked to our local post office, the disks magically started getting back to them.

Am I the only one?

[slapout]

Wow. Am I the only one that said "there's got to be a catch to this" when this thing started and went to their website to check it out. I knew that they would charge you for the movie because I looked it up. Did you think they were just going to let you keep the movie?

Re:Am I the only one?

[XFilesFMDS1013]

Am I the only one that said "there's got to be a catch to this"

Of course not, but try telling explaining this to the general public. They hear "no late fees", and they think "no late fees, I can keep it as long as I want", they just don't get it. But in the end, it's not really their fault, people just need better education on all the facts. It also helps if you have a tinfoil hat and already think everybody's out to get you.

Re:Am I the only one?

[MightyMartian]

Well, the old expression "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" should be the maxim of any consumer. Whether its Mr. Ben Ahore, representative of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company promising large sums for almost no work, or Blockbuster claiming they no longer charging late fees, the fact is that people should use their common sense.

The sad part about this is that I can compare Blockbuster with Mr. Ben Ahore of the Central Bank of Nigeria on behalf of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company and not feel that I'm really exercising that much poetic license.

Re:Am I the only one?

[nametaken]

No, I expected it would be like Family Video operates. Unofficially, you can just never pay your fines. They did exceptionally well because when people had fines at BB, they just never rented there again. If you have fines at Family, you go in and just rent more movies. Which one makes more money on you?

When it turned out that it was 7days past due date they bill you for the movie, then you can return it in 30 days, then if you bring it back they charge you a seemingly arbitrary reshelving fee... it started getting a little bit confusing. I'm still not sure I have it exactly right.

Fortuantly, I DID get the info ahead of time, but it was not only a bit more complex than they suggested, it was more complex than I would have expected.

Even worse, I had to pry this information out of an employee who had been stricly instructed to only hand people pamphlets with legalese in them. He took mercy on me and gave me the quick lowdown.

Re:Am I the only one?

[porcupine8]

Well, given that Netflix really has no late fees for real, I don't think that it's entirely ridiculous to think that Blockbuster was offering the same. True, Netflix works on an entirely different business model, with a subscription fee and a limit to the number of movies you can have out at one time, so upon further inspection BB's deal is unlikely to be the same.

But for some random guy whose buddy is using Netflix and just knows his buddy can keep movies as long as he wants, why shouldn't he take BB's claim at face value?

(Aside from the inherent problem in taking any advertised claim at face value - but in reality, you can't expect the general public to think that way.)

Re:Am I the only one?

[carpe_noctem]

Yes, I thought the same thing. I won't give blockbuster my business anymore... they lie too damn much.

"No late fees" was the first lie... turns out you had to pay a monthly fee to have no late fees (a blockbuster plus membership or some such thing, iirc).

"Here's a free movie rental" was the second lie. My ex-gf and I used to rent movies from blockbuster all the time... sometimes they'd give us a "free" movie as an incentive to come back. We later learned that "free" actually meant "free until the end of the month, which is coincidentally tomorrow".

"All your favorite movies in stock"... you ever tried to call them out on this one?

Blockbuster talks big, but their business practices suck. I'm much more fond of netflix (so far, anyways).

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

blockbuster online operates the exact same way netflix does!

Re:Am I the only one?

[zakezuke]

Did you think they were just going to let you keep the movie?

I for one thought it was like the NetFlix deal where you *could* in theory keep the movie but they would just not let you rent any more until you returned them and nag you about it. Given the fact they sell these discs for about $10-$20 it wasn't too good to be true. A short term loss but would balance out if it got more people in the store.

Re:Am I the only one?

[SimplyCosmic]

Well, given that Netflix really has no late fees for real ...

Netflix may not have what is traditionally thought of as a late fee, but you simply can't stop paying for the service and keep the movies forever like some people "fooled" by Blockbuster's program seem to mistakenly believe.

In fact, I believe if you look at Netflix's terms of service, as soon as your account is terminated for lack of payment, you're required to return the movies within seven days or be charged for the replacement of those movies, which is similar to what happens with the "no late fees" program, except that there doesn't seem to be a way to return the movies that you've now bought for a credit.

Re:Am I the only one?

[GlassHeart]

the fact is that people should use their common sense.

It's always prudent to read the fine print, but do you really want to blame the people who didn't? Do you read every last line of the EULA that you agree to, especially if the first line said "GNU General Public License"?

If not, then I think we should require honesty of corporations and void their contracts or EULAs when they lie about it.

Re:Am I the only one?

[mark-t]

Well, the "no late fees" did grab my attention, and like you I decided to read up on it just a bit to see.

If you read their brochure, it does quite clearly state at the end that customers that are more than 7 days late are charged the full price of the video.

In other words, they aren't charging you a late fee, they are charging you a _purchase_ fee. I fail to see how people could construe this as false advertising, even *IF* they want to make the argument that the whole thing about the full price of the video being applied after 7 days was in fine print at the bottom. It's perfectly reasonable for them to charge you the retail cost of the movie if it's apparent that you're not returning it... how are they supposed to know you didn't just decide to keep it?

To top that all off, you can still return the video anytime within the next _thirty_ days and get a refund on the video, as long as it's still in rentable condition.

I can't believe Blockbuster is being made to refund people's money on this... are people _that_ desperate for a free lunch that they have to sue over something like this? My opinion of the general public that whined about this enough for it to happen in the first place just dropped by at least another notch or two.

Re:Am I the only one?

[anthony_dipierro]

Did you think they were just going to let you keep the movie?

I figured they were just advertising for their monthly service. But no, you're not the only one who figured it out.

I'm sure there were some people who were tricked. After all, what's the point of advertising "no late fees" if all the people you're advertising to are smart enough not to fall for your fraudulent ad.

I think the settlement is a good one. Give anyone who claims they were tricked a refund, stop the false advertising, and pay for the attorney fees.

Re:Am I the only one?

[TopShelf]

"All your favorite movies in stock"... you ever tried to call them out on this one?


Actually, I have called them on this - if they are out of a title guaranteed to be in, then you get a coupon for a free rental (no strings attached). What more could one expect?

Re:Am I the only one?

[anomalous cohort]

Netflix works on an entirely different business model, with a subscription fee and a limit to the number of movies you can have out at one time

Where I live, Blockbuster has a walk in subscription service. You can rent one video at a time for about $15 per month. They are still advertising "no late fees, ever" here.

Re:Am I the only one?

[xbradlyx]

Well, given that Netflix really has no late fees for real...

yes they do. $17.99 a month. -bradly

Re:Am I the only one?

[porcupine8]

Well, in that case, Blockbuster charges you a $3-4 late fee every time you walk out of the store with a movie. You really have to draw the line between "late fee" and "fee for them giving you movies" somewhere.

Re:Am I the only one?

[porcupine8]

I'm pretty sure that's a lot newer than the "No Late Fees" campaign, though.

Re:Am I the only one?

[porcupine8]

But as long as you keep paying the fee for taking the movies out (which you also pay at Blockbuster, it's just $3-4 per movie instead of $18/month), you keep them as long as you want. You can keep one movie for a year, while you keep sending two others in for new movies every week. You're not charged any more for keeping that movie for a year than you would be if you'd returned it within a week like all the other movies you're renting.

Like I said, it is a different business model, so you really can't expect BB to be the same. But although you do keep paying, it's definitely not a Late Fee that you're paying.

Re:Am I the only one?

[10101001 10101001]

(Aside from the inherent problem in taking any advertised claim at face value - but in reality, you can't expect the general public to think that way.)

Yes, how stupid of the general public to believe advertisements. I mean, advertisements aren't at all about providing information. It's about disinformation. There isn't an FTC designed to guard against fraud either. It's all caveat emptor. Hell, there doesn't even exist a government of the people to remove the need of every person to be involved in every single possible abuse against a person or persons.

It's at least some thoughts along this line that allows for such blatant stuff like spam and utter trash "news" to be ignored out of hand as acceptable. If people as individuals are not going to boycott blatant liars and cheats, then at some point the government needs step in. I think the Blockbuster case is but the tip of the iceberg for when the government should step in. Simple disclaimer legalize shouldn't expunge liability to lying.

Re:Am I the only one?

[porcupine8]

I didn't mean that it's okay for advertisements to lie.

Just that, by their nature, advertisements are the most biased forms of communication out there. And no one should take what is known to be a very biased communciation at face value. Unfortunately, many people in this country are incapable of realizing that bias even exists, let alone sifting through it.

Re:Am I the only one?

[ozbird]

... people should use their common sense.

"Common sense" seems to be an endangered species. Ever since the litigation pandemic, the world seems to be inhabited by a bunch of dumbasses who believe they can sue shoe manufacturers for not including instructions and a safety warning with lace-up shoes.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

...or Blockbuster claiming they no longer charging late fees, the fact is that people should use their common sense.

When I saw the ads, I had assumed that Blockbuster had taken on a Netflix-style business model. It makes sense (Netflix has been around for a while now, the business model appears to work), and what better way to defeat the competition than to imitate them? Happens all the time.

So at first glance, it seemed perfectly viable that "No Late Fees" could in fact be true. Netflix has been using the same line for years now (I seem to recall commercials involving customers running up to a just-closed Blockbuster-like video store in frustration...)

Granted, if I were to consider utilizing Blockbuster's new service, I would have read the fine print. But I do believe that they were hoping that most consumers would assume this to be a Netflix-style service, without reading the fine print. In my opinion, they took advantage of how the average consumer would interpret the ads, by trying to appear similar to an existing, (relatively) well-known service.

So while I do agree, the customers who were burned likely didn't read the fine print and didn't know/understand what they were obligating themselves to, Blockbuster (IMO) purposely misrepresented this new "service" in hopes that customers would mistake it for a Netflix-style service. Whether they hoped for customers to wind up owing money, or were just hoping to get more new sign-ups, is another question; but in any case, I believe the ads were intentionally misleading.

I'm not saying that the consumer is without responsibility here -- but I am saying that I believe this service was launched with hopes of intentionally misleading the public. I think that Blockbuster should be held responsible for some portion of the money lost due to the "misunderstandings"; perhaps half (the mislead consumers being responsible for the other half)...

Re:Am I the only one?

[10101001 10101001]

no one should take what is known to be a very biased communciation at face value.

I somewhat agree, and I somewhat disagree. There are two types of biased communications. The first is simply stating biased opinion and only that biased opinion. The other is stating stating select facts to misrepresent the truth (for example, leaving out context or events that occurred) or outright lying. While the former is certainly a valid form of communication and free speech, the other is either fraud or slander/libel. And it's the job of government to investigate and punish fraud, while it's the job of individuals who are defamed to sue for slander/libel.

Unfortunately, many people in this country are incapable of realizing that bias even exists, let alone sifting through it.

Advertisements often include opinions--heavily biased, of course. And if this whole discussion was about opinion, then I'd see your point. But when Blockbuster stated an offer as fact, they were clearly lying. To me state that one should "sift through" this type of bias is to accept that liars should be able to spout off whatever they please as truth and that it's the people who are hurt by said liars that are responsible. The fact is, it's the various people who did accept the fact as advertised which are responsible for, in part, the punishing of Blockbuster.

The most frustrating part of all of this is how easy it is to draw parallels to FoxNews. The sheer number of obvious lies that occurs on FoxNews, a *news* channel, that go unpunished baffle my mind. The courts have ruled that FoxNews' first business is entertainment, and that reporters for FoxNews cannot seek wrongful termination suits if FoxNews places business above accurate reporting. You're right that many people don't see the bias in FoxNews, nor do they sift through it. But, it seems clear to me that with FoxNews, state and federal governments have failed the people by forcing everyone to do their own fact checking. If we the people are truly required do our own sifting and look out for ourselves, then I truly do not understand why we have much, if any, government at all. I can only hope that at some point in the future others being to realize this as well.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm reading a lot of misinformation or folks slightly missing the point here: Blockbuster has an online service *very* similar to NetFlix. Except Blockbuster's monthly fee is $14.97, NetFlix $17.95. I trialed both for 2 weeks -- no difference in video availability or response time. The kicker(s) for me was that Blockbuster online accounts *also* receive two free in-store (brick and mortar) coupons per month in addition to the 3-dvd deal. I'm a blockbuster online customer now...

Also, anyone with half a brain had to know Blockbuster would eventually charge for the long-kept DVD, and obviously remove the charge when the movie is returned. What *I* think is the sneaky aspect is that although the credit card charge is revoked, when you return the movie they still apply a $1.50 "restocking fee". So in reality there *is* a $1.50 late fee!! (They now call it a re-stocking fee.)

Re:Am I the only one?

[Kevin Mitnick]

What more could one expect?

for the movie to be in stock!

Re:Am I the only one?

[guy0089]

I completly agree. I think thats what the problem with the world is these days. Every single thing has to be spelled out, otherwise people are going to complain it wasn't clear just so they can get what they want. In my mind their are too many greedy bastards that want everything to go their way, and if it doesn't it's someone elses fault and never their's. For example, it is painfully obvious that Blockbuster wasn't going to let you keep the movie (How the hell would that business make money), but people wanted the money back that was spent on buying the movie because they kept it for +7 days after the due date. They were ignorant to think that the movies would be free and therefore do NOT deserve that money back. Saying that the advertisment wasn't specific enough is just an excuse. -- The world is pitiful these days!

No Late Fees - You Just Have To BUY It...

[Stanistani]

Truth makes lousy advertising slogans, dunnit?

Re:No Late Fees - You Just Have To BUY It...

[mottie]

You don't HAVE to buy it. If you take the movie back they will refund the purchase, and charge you a small "restocking fee". You don't have to pay any late fees, and you don't HAVE to buy the movie. You simply have to pay a restocking fee. Granted its still a 'fee', its one heck of a lot cheaper than late fees. from Blockbuster.com After 7 days beyond the due date, Blockbuster will automatically convert the rental to a purchase on the 8th day and will charge the member the selling price for the item in effect at the time of the rental, minus the rental fee paid. Member then has 30 days to return the product and receive a credit for the selling price charged, less a $1.25 restocking fee.

Re:No Late Fees - You Just Have To BUY It...

[mottie]

worst formatting ever!


from blockbuster.com:

After 7 days beyond the due date, Blockbuster will automatically convert the rental to a purchase on the 8th day and will charge the member the selling price for the item in effect at the time of the rental, minus the rental fee paid. Member then has 30 days to return the product and receive a credit for the selling price charged, less a $1.25 restocking fee.

Re:No Late Fees - You Just Have To BUY It...

[Stanistani]

Ahh, go back to restocking. ...and don't keep the "Lara Croft" titles in "Sci-Fi" - Don't you folks have a "Rancid Shit" Section?

Re:No Late Fees - You Just Have To BUY It...

[mottie]

hey wow, i attracted a Troll! Ignorant people act like these terms are hidden, and written in small print. They are actually displayed quite prominently in a link on blockbuster.com

Re:No Late Fees - You Just Have To BUY It...

[Stanistani]

I am NOT a troll - *stamps foot*
I am an OGRE...
*chews nails*

Re:No Late Fees - You Just Have To BUY It...

[Theaetetus]

You don't have to pay any late fees, and you don't HAVE to buy the movie. You simply have to pay a restocking fee. Granted its still a 'fee', its one heck of a lot cheaper than late fees.

But this is what the suit was about: you get a movie, keep it for more than the rental period, and when you return it, you're charged an additional fee. That sounds like a late fee to me. Call it a restocking fee if you want, but it's still a fee for returning a movie later than it's due date. Late fee. So, having big signs saying "the end of late fees" is obviously false advertising. If they had advertised "only one fee for late movies, no matter how late", that would have been fair, but this wasn't.

Good.

[LewsTherinKinslayer]

I used to work at GameCrazy (a part of the Hollywood Video chain,) and we had a lot of customers who would come in, and basically say, why should we be renting from you anymore? Blockbuster has no late fees. When we informed them that if they didn't return the movie within a week of the due date they would be charged the full price for the item, not a single customer told us they were made aware of that fact.

I went to Blockbuster myself a couple months ago and the man who checked me out, the manager, said to me "And don't forget, we no longer have any late fees!" Certainly a misleading comment.

Re:Good.

[christopherfinke]

You'd have to be a moron not to question the "No Late Fees" policy. The first thing I did when I saw the ad in the store was ask the checkout guy, "So how does this no-late-fees thing work?"

What they have now is still a better deal than before - now, you can keep the movie for a month, return it, and only be charged a $1.25 restocking fee. Before, you'd be charged the price of a full rental for every extra day you kept it. It looks like a couple of idiots have ruined this deal for the rest of us.

Re:Good.

[MightyMartian]

You've revealed the other side of this dishonest advertising campaign. It hurts competitors by convincing customers of an impossible scenario. When the competitors refuse to stoop to the same level as Blockbuster, customers are lost. This campaign in particular is so unbelievably slimey that you just have to wonder at the people running the company's legal department. I mean, I can understand crooked executives and mentally-challenged marketers, but did the lawyers actually think that they were going to get past consumer protection laws?

Re:Good.

[caino59]

And netflix truely has no late fees.

ill stick with netflix - especially since they typically get the movie on the day i send it back and i get the new one most often the next day...

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

So according to you, an advertizing campaign can be pretty much any random English text, and it's up to the consumer to sort it out? That's retarded.

Re:Good.

[AceCaseOR]

Actually, when the whole "No Late Fees" thing came around, one of the local TV news stations (I live in Oregon) did a piece about the whole thing, including the catches. So, at least in Oregon, there's not as much excuse of an excuse for ignorance.

Re:Good.

[tool462]

When lawyers get paid by the hour what incentive do they have to discourage shady practices? After all, if it's in a grey area why not just wait and see what the courts decide?

Re:Good.

[MightyMartian]

When lawyers get paid by the hour what incentive do they have to discourage shady practices? After all, if it's in a grey area why not just wait and see what the courts decide?

But this is such an obvious case. There's no wiggle room here, and Blockbuster knows it. Didn't anybody in the boardroom think "You know, this might cause us some problems?" If I were a shareholder in Blockbuster, I'd be looking for more blood than Roy Disney at a Michael Eisner look-alike contest.

Re:Good.

[tool462]

This is true, but perhaps the corporate culture at Blockbuster discourages them from speaking up about this sort of thing. For all we know some conscientious lawyer did say something and he was ignored in the name of marketing.

Re:Good.

[ectospasm]

What no one here seems to mention is that if you bring what you rented back to Blockbuster, you get refunded that "purchase."

Re:Good.

[LurkerXXX]

Unless you didn't happen to watch that particular newscast. Geez, a report on the news does NOT excuse deceptive advertising.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. You have to pay the subscription price of $11.99 a month regardless. So I can rent a movie from them, keep it for three months before sending it back and although I get charged no late fees, it ended up costing me $35.97 for that movie. You people who scream "Netflix has no late fees!" are screwed up.

Re:Good.

[dmarcoot]

you forget, this GW Bush's America. "Consumer Protection Laws" is fast becoming a oxymoron

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh for shit's sake, just move to Holland and quit snivelling. Man you Americans are such fucking crybabies. "Wah George Bush this! Wah George Bush that! Wah wah wah wah wah! The government didn't change my diaper! Wah!"

Grow up. Elections get won and lost all the time.

Re:Good.

[AceCaseOR]

True, and I might add that I said in my previous post that it did not completely excuse the deceptive advertising. However, as the piece on the news was heavily advertised, and was on the news (IIRC) at least a week in advance of change in the late fee's policy taking effect, and there were multiple news stations covering the story.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, according to the article:

"Blockbuster will be refunding customers as part of the deal."

So they'll be refunded their lost customers!

Re:Good.

[syrinx]

I'd be looking for more blood than Roy Disney at a Michael Eisner look-alike contest.

roffle, genius analogy.

Re:Good.

[MightyMartian]

After being charged a "re-stocking" fee. In effect, Blockbuster has replaced one fee with another. They certainly didn't go out of their way to tell people that in their advertising blitz, thus the charge of deceptive advertising. Even those rip-off late-night paid programming exercise equipment shows plant the disclaimer somewhere in the advertising.

Re:Good.

[caino59]

uh...i get 3 movies...say i keep one for 3 months. i can still get quite a few other movies while keeping that one.

Re:Good.

[anethema]

While i will agree it is somewhat dishonest...the big restocking fee is just over a dollar. Who fucking cares. Can keep the movie for up to a month after the due date and only pay a dollar upon returning it. Would you rather go back to the old system? Jesus its like you people whine for the sake of whining. It takes me 2.7 minutes to make the dollar it would cost to keep a movie for a whole month.

Stop complaining and just accept a good thing. There IS no reason to rent at any other place now, except maybe a mail-in one a la netflix. Keep your movie for a month for a buck (and 25? cents). Wheras at joe blow movies you usually pay all or half the price of the movie rental each day you're late. Might as well have bought it at the end of a month like that.

Re:Good.

[MightyMartian]

There's this little thing called ethics. I personally have no interest in giving money to an unethical company, particularly one so blatant. If it was such a good thing, why didn't Blockbuster just make it clear in the advertising? Because they had the intent of fooling the consumer, that's why. They won't be getting my buck.

Re:Good.

[anethema]

Then you and your ethics will be paying 5 dollars per day late fee on a new release...have fun.

Re:Good.

[MightyMartian]

I get my videos back on time, so I haven't actually paid a late fee in something like six or seven years. As it is, I'd soon pay $5 to a reputable company than $1.50 to liars who went out of their way to fool the video-renting consumer. If you wish to support liars, then be my guest. You deserve them.

Re:Good.

[bedessen]

On the other hand, as soon as $misinformed_customer finds a charge for $50 (or whatever the inflated cost is) for a movie that he's had for a couple of weeks from Blockbuster, he's going to be pretty pissed and perhaps decide to go back to the competitor out of rage.

Anyone know...

[LoganAvatar]

... what 3 states were not involved, and why?

Re:Anyone know...

[heauxmeaux]

Belarus, Mexico and Bermuda.

Re:Anyone know...

[blueskies]

Why?

Probably because they are demanding more from blockbuster? It was a settlement not a judgement, so I'm assuming that the other states are holding out for a bigger settlement.

Blockbuster wants to settle:
Blockbuster spokeswoman, Karen Raskopf, said the settlement excluded the state of New Jersey, which last month filed a lawsuit accusing Blockbuster of failing to disclose key terms of its new rental policy.

``We continue to talk to them. We are hopeful we can reach a resolution with New Jersey,'' Raskopf said.

Re:Anyone know...

[ari_j]

Maine and Alaska don't have any Blockbuster locations, maybe. ;)

Re:Anyone know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they even have electricity in Maine and Alaska? I here they don't even have tampons and use old editions of National Geographic to wipe their asses.

Re:Anyone know...

[BillX]

Were they sued by all 50?

Heh, you've gotta be pretty questionable to get sued by every state in the union, I guess.

Re:Anyone know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they even have electricity in Maine and Alaska? I here they don't even have tampons and use old editions of National Geographic to wipe their asses.

You're thinking of Kentucky and West Virginia. In Maine and Alaska they sneak across the Canadian border to steal their TP.

Re:Anyone know...

[Evil Butters]

Taken from another copy of the same article...

"The states who are not included in the settlement are New Jersey, which has a pending separate suit, and Vermont and New Hampshire."

Not sure why Vermont and NH weren't included!

Re:Anyone know...

[Anonymous Coward]

We probably haven't figured out yet up here that we were scammed....

Excellent!

[blueskies]

This is excellent news. Stupid blockbuster.

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, Blockbuster employees were instructed to cut off their testicles and clitori for scientific research to pay off various state consumer protection branches.

You must be the only one

[AtariAmarok]

"Did you think they were just going to let you keep the movie?"

That is what the ads strongly implied.

Re:You must be the only one

[bandrzej]

Agreed. On their website, it was burried in the small fine print. It definitely was not easy to find.

I'm a consumer whore! And how!

Re:You must be the only one

[addie]

That is what the ads strongly implied

Sure, you're right. But who would actually believe this? Who would be naive enough to think that "no late fees" means you keep a movie you rent? After I saw the commercial, I was skeptical. So I went to Blockbuster and asked for details. They gave me a pamphlet that explained it clearly, and now I happen to think it's a good system.

Lawsuits like this are disappointing. Yet another example of people believing that the law should protect themselves from their own idiocy.

Re:You must be the only one

[Reality Master 101]

What? Exactly how did the ads "strongly imply" that?

Not being a moron, I assumed I would be charged for the movie if it wasn't returned. I mean, jeez.

Re:You must be the only one

[El_Servas]

Lawsuits like this are disappointing. Yet another example of people believing that the law should protect themselves from their own idiocy.

Leave me alone or i'll suit you. =P

Re:You must be the only one

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is a case of misleading advertising plain and simple. Consumers should not have to say "is there a catch?" and then ask for details.

Re:You must be the only one

[Rufus88]

I figured there was probably a catch, but also thought that maybe they were adopting a Netflix-type model, where a customer could keep a movie as long as he likes, but couldn't rent any more until the late one was returned.

Re:You must be the only one

[AtariAmarok]

"Not being a moron, I assumed I would be charged for the movie if it wasn't returned. I mean, jeez"

So you figured that there really WERE late fees even if the ads said NO late fees. More agreement that the ad campaign was all false.

Re:You must be the only one

[Le Marteau]

Leave me alone or i'll suit you. =P

What are you, a tailor or something? Will you make me wear polyester, or plaid, or something?

Re:You must be the only one

[Anonymous Coward]

I would believe this. NetFlix survives with no late fees. When I first saw the commercial I thought that perhaps they had adopted the NetFlix subscription model instead of paying by the rental. They sort of have, but it's not via this program.

This program is pretty cool, because it allows you a bit more flexibility with the rental and it punishes those who abuse it. It's just stupid that they'd flagrantly say "no more late fees" as if you could just rent a movie and never return it.

Re:You must be the only one

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you'll just begin to find him very appealing.

Re:You must be the only one

[Reality Master 101]

So you figured that there really WERE late fees even if the ads said NO late fees. More agreement that the ad campaign was all false.

No, I figured out that a "late fee" means a fee charged in addition to the normal rental fee if it was returned late. This is opposed to a fee charged to purchase a video. I figured out that, not wanting to give videos away for free, that Blockbuster would simply charge the retail price of the video.

In other words, if you keep the video then you buy the video. This really isn't that complicated.

Re:You must be the only one

[rapidweather]

Also, that part about:

Blockbuster will be refunding customers as part of the deal.
needs to be examined by a panel of distinguished lawyers and judges.

Does this mean that single guys get to choose which customer they get as part of the refund deal?

Blonde with long legs...
Redhead with nice bazookas...
Brunette with pretty eyes...

Where do we sign up?

Re:You must be the only one

[MightyMartian]

Well, to some extent that is the entire purpose of consumer protection laws. People can be very naive, particularly when a marketing campaign is designed specifically to tug at the ol' greed strings.

Re:You must be the only one

[QMO]

So, you figure that a fee that is charged if and only if the video is late is not a late fee?

Re:You must be the only one

[angle_slam]

Agreed. I think any Netflix subscriber probably would have guessed that Blockbuster had adopted this model when they heard the "no late fee" ad campaign.

Re:You must be the only one

[Reality Master 101]

So, you figure that a fee that is charged if and only if the video is late is not a late fee?

Yes. Why is this so hard for some people? A "late fee" is by definition a fee charged for RENTALS. You are no longer renting a video if you KEEP IT. In that case, then you are BUYING the video.

Re:You must be the only one

[AtariAmarok]

"Yes. Why is this so hard for some people? A "late fee" is by definition a fee charged for RENTALS."

Maybe because Blockbuster is known primarily as a video rental business? Even now their web page refers to RENTALS, but does not refer to SALES. If a company known primarily for rentals, and has been charging late fees suddenly says "NO LATE FEES", the first and obvious assumption would be that it applied to the rental business. If they are really making a huge shift to sales, a better sign would have been "BUY INSTEAD OF RENT".

Re:You must be the only one

[QMO]

Silly me. Now I understand.

WHEN I return the thing - notice, I am not keeping it - is the only criteria for charging the fee, therefore it is, of course, NOT a late fee.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Re:You must be the only one

[anthony_dipierro]

A "late fee" is by definition a fee charged for RENTALS. You are no longer renting a video if you KEEP IT. In that case, then you are BUYING the video.

Yes but what about the people who don't keep it, but merely return it a few weeks late? They are charged a fee. What should we call this fee?

Re:You must be the only one

[Reality Master 101]

Yes but what about the people who don't keep it, but merely return it a few weeks late? They are charged a fee. What should we call this fee?

Well, the concession I'll make on this is that seven days is way too soon to assume the customer is never bringing it back. In that respect, I think Blockbuster's policy wasn't quite fair.

Re:You must be the only one

[Goronmon]

Sure the system may be perfectly fine, but you can't argue that Blockbuster wasn't purposely trying to get people to believe that there would actually be no late fees.

And the fact that you had to drive to Blockbuster and ask them for the fine print just shows how hard they were trying to hide the fact that there were actually late fees for keeping a rental for an extended period of time.

I guess it just sounds like you are saying that lying is justified because people should be able to notice it.

Re:You must be the only one

[slapout]

Any time in the past that you didn't return a video to a rental place, they would charge you the full price of the video. Why would anyone think it would be different now?

Re:You must be the only one

[AdamWeeden]

Unfortunately for the uninformed, Blockbuster had already established a program like NetFlix (called the Movie Pass) where you pay a monthly fee to keep a movie as long as you like and tried it out as many times as you wish. Therefore trying to apply NetFlixes business model to this promotion is just plain ignorance.

Re:You must be the only one

[anethema]

Actually, they also have a plan like this
look here:

http://www.blockbuster.com/homepages/displayPage .a ction?channel1=MoviePass&nav=false

(copy paste the link lazyasses ;) )

Keep it for as long as you want, but you only get one movie at a time..unless you pay more. Can get up to 3. 3 movies per day, burn and return...90 per month..not bad.

Re:You must be the only one

[Anonymous Coward]

Count me as ignorant. I haven't been to Blockbuster for ages and at first thought their new campaign was a new way to compete with Netflix. I soon realized it was an over zealous company executive with a knee-jerk reaction to losing the previous court actions.. and decided the law wasn't written for him ( I'm guessing here). There are plenty more trying to abuse our capitalist system into oblivion.. we need to put some teeth into our existing regulations.

What's a hockey game without a tough referee?? Maybe that's a bad analogy ;)

Re:You must be the only one

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what the ads strongly implied.

So ... despite the fact it clearly said "Rental", you though "Oh, they must mean FOR SALE".

Wow, you're dumb.

Re:You must be the only one

[hesiod]

> Exactly how did the ads "strongly imply" that?

The fact that the commercial contains people hanging a HUGE FUCKING BANNER THAT READS "NO LATE FEES" and nothing else would be a pretty strong implication. That and a crowd of a hundred people chanting "no more late fees," not "no more late fees for at least a week."

Re:You must be the only one

[isil]

The same thing an autoparts store calls it? Mmmmm...a RESTOCKING FEE?

Hey...whaddayaknow....

Re:You must be the only one

[angle_slam]

Blockbuster's advertising for the new program is to entice new customers. Of course a new customer is uninformed (or as you so eloquently put it, "ignorant"). If you're not a Blockbuster program, you have no idea what Movie Pass is.

Re:You must be the only one

[CurbyKirby]

maybe they were adopting a Netflix-type model, where a customer could keep a movie as long as he likes, but couldn't rent any more until the late one was returned.

It wouldn't be a similar model unless blockbuster starts charging a monthly fee like Netflix does, as opposed to a per-rental fee.

People usually have no interest in keeping a Netflix "rental" any longer than absolutely necessary, because for every day you keep a movie, you are seeing less return on your monthly investment.

Since Blockbuster doesn't charge monthly, they MUST charge some sort of late fee, regardless of what it's called or how it's spinned, or go out of business.

Re:You must be the only one

[jp10558]

Oh, I thought it was too good to be true based on the ads. However, I agree with the outcome, false advertising can not be allowed. And this was blatently false.

If Blockbuster had been allowed to get away with this, it could easily set a precedent that people ought to figure out if ads are lying or not. Not that I trust ads now, but we can at least be sure they aren't outright lying.

Hidden charges

[Bifurcati]

I really hate companies that try and slip extra charges into the fine print. There was a phone card company in the UK that advertised "No connection fee!" but when you looked in the fine print there was a "Disconnection fee" of 25p - the same as everyone else's connection fee! What a crock!

And the problem is that when people get hit by this fee, they don't do anything about it - they just roll over and pay. So good to see some action being taken!

Re:Hidden charges

[Synn]

So like, what if you refuse to pay the disconnection fee. Do they just not disconnect you?

Re:Hidden charges

[Dirtside]

Fine print does indeed suck. I'm glad that I'm anal about reading it:

I've had a Fleet credit card for several years. Last year they were bought by Bank of America, also known as Bank of Customer Service Nightmares. (I don't have any other accounts with BoA, but I have a lot of friends who do/did and regret/regretted it.) Well, they didn't hassle me too much, until I got a mailer from them a couple of weeks ago saying that my card had been given Premium status (I think it was called), and all I needed to do to continue it (because it was renewed annually, according to the mailer) was sign this form and sent it back in the included envelope. Premium status would give me all sorts of benefits and bonuses. Several of them sounded interesting, but then I read the fine, fine print on the back of the form...

...which informed me that the annual Premium fee of $49 would be automatically charged to my Fleet (BoA) card annually. Needless to say, I ripped up the form. The "benefits" were of no use to someone who spends as little on that card as I do.

Re:Hidden charges

[Bifurcati]

Good show! I've had similar experiences with credit card companies offering me so-many thousand frequent flyer points for getting a new credit card. The catch? An application free costing more than the frequent flyer points are worth. Bah!

I tip my hat to you, sir!

Re:Hidden charges

[Dirtside]

What bugs me is credit cards with annual fees. None of mine do, but one or two of my wife's do. One of these days I need to get around to threatening to close that card if they don't stop charging us a fee for the privilege of lending us money. That usually works, even if you have to do it once a year (some credit card companies will switch you over to permanent no-fee status, but usually they just credit you for that particular year's fee).

Re:Hidden charges

[Bifurcati]

Hmm! Never thought about "blackmailing" them like that! My card is no fees, but if it ever comes about that they want to charge them, then I might give that a go!

Banks here in Australia try and charge fees - I'm on a student account at the moment (grad student) so I'm exempt, but when the time comes I'd switch banks in a heartbeat if someone won't charge me $5 a month to make money off my money.

Re:Hidden charges

[uberdave]

Don't merely tear up the form. Send the shards back to them in that handy little prepaid envelope. Thus they pay to send the garbage to you, and they pay to get it back.

Bittorrent: No late fees!

[AtariAmarok]

Anyone care to evaluate the slogan in the topic?

Re:Bittorrent: No late fees!

[anakin876]

Congratulations! You've been randomly selected to be assessed 15,000 dollars per DVD you downloaded as part of our "The MPAA sucks and charges you late fees when you least expect it" program. It's easier than driving out to your mailbox! All you have to do is download movies. Don't worry, sooner or later, we'll catch you!

Re:Bittorrent: No late fees!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you're being funny, but I just want to point this out... if they catch everyone they won't be fining at 500 times the value of the crime you've committed. The only reason the current fines are set so steep is because they don't catch everyone. Do you seriously think the government would fine 5% of the population (downloaders) $15000 each? That's 225 BILLION dollars... it would cause massive economic disruption, no government with any interest in staying in office would allow it.

Re:Bittorrent: No late fees!

[dago]

Shit, I wanted to get into this program, but then the fine print read "Available in USA only".

I guess it's another big innovation that we won't get :(

meant what you say...

[defy god]

you know, it would be great when companies actually mean what they say. i hate when companies say "Free," "Unlimited," or in this case "No late fees" when there really is some catch that makes the previous statement false.

how can companies get away with this? there are even some "deals" that don't include an asterisk. it's sad when you start thinking, well, thank god this company had an asterisk next to their deal. this way, i actually know there's a catch. other companies are starting to have the balls not to put an asterisk, just simply hiding the "terms" in the fine print.

Re:meant what you say...

[MightyMartian]

Yeah, it's like the DSL or Cable advertising that says "up to 15 bazillion gizomegobytes per second" with the ultra fine print written in molecular-sized inked that says "Under laboratory conditions with cables no longer than 5cm in length and with fifty seven inches of lead shielding and a witchdoctor chanting 'Telco-welco-cable-wable, make this tiny connection ultra-stable!'. Individual user results may vary, and it probably won't work at all in the state of New Jersey."

Re:meant what you say...

[SquadBoy]

1 metere. Ethernet cables have to be 1 metere minimum. Other than that you are dead on correct. IN particular the New Jersey thing. Network geeks *hate* New Jersey.

Re:meant what you say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just rember that the words "up to X" include all values below the X, specifically including "zero".

--
AC

Re:meant what you say...

[Gregg Alan]

1 metere. Ethernet cables have to be 1 metere minimum

What? Where does that come from and what should I do with all my 1 foot patch cables (router to switch, wireless AP to switch, etc.).

I'm not seeing any problem with them so I'm really curious what should be going wrong.

Or are you just being silly?

Re:meant what you say...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if the standard specifies some minimum length for some silly reason, but there's absolutely no reason why the Ethernet protocol can't work on a zero length cable (aka, 0 propagation delay). The only potential bugaboos might have to do with electrical properties like capacitance, resistance, or that catch-all, inductance, but I'm pretty sure the differences between 15 and 100 cm don't amount to a hill of beans on the engineering tolerances.

Re:meant what you say...

[SquadBoy]

It is in the ethernet technical specs. Can't be arsed to look it up just now. Has to do with signal and bounce and the timing. You might very well get better performance by getting in spec but it is not a work or not work thing. Scale that up to ~500 nodes (Just to pick the size of the network I run) and you *will* have very odd hard to debug problems . Note that this is combined length so it you have a 1 foot cable running into a wall jack that has a few more feet behind the wall you would be good. That would all depend on just how your in-house wiring was done.

Re:meant what you say...

[Gregg Alan]

Cool... I never looked at the spec (well, I did once but that was to see the max length).

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind if ever odd stuff starts happening.

Re:meant what you say...

[SquadBoy]

Heh. NP.

fuck them

[Anonymous Coward]

now i got a few free movies.. bbl im going to blockbuster to get my money back =D

The entire store has no movies now

[diediebinks]

Anybody actually been in a Blockbuster since they instituted the No Late Fees? The only thing this promotion did was make it so there are no movies in stock.

Re:The entire store has no movies now

[Professor_UNIX]

Anybody actually been in a Blockbuster since they instituted the No Late Fees? The only thing this promotion did was make it so there are no movies in stock.

I think this forced our Giant Eagle's "Iggle Video" stores to make everything a 7 day rental instead of the previous 1 day rental for new stuff and 5 days for older stuff. As a result there is never anything new in stock. I wish they'd go back to the 1 day rental for new movies.

Re:The entire store has no movies now

[hackstraw]

I only noticed a lack of customers, and the inability of the cashier to give me an adequate sized bag for the 12pack of Coke that I bought. I was informed that the lack of bags was due to "cutbacks".

Re:The entire store has no movies now

[Peyna]

Who buys beverages from a movie rental store? Do you like paying more than twice regular price for such items?

Re:The entire store has no movies now

[OverlordQ]

That was our store did, Wednesday were 'Dollar' Days, new rentals for a $1 buck you only got 1 day, normally $3 something with tax and two days.

Re:The entire store has no movies now

[hackstraw]

Who buys beverages from a movie rental store? Do you like paying more than twice regular price for such items?

I do. The liqueur store is in the same shopping center, and in my state (virginia) liqueur stores don't sell anything besides liqueur and some selected mixers. And, FYI the 12pack was $4.00. I usually pay $3.50 for a 12pack, sometimes $3.00 or $2.50 if I'm lucky.

Good enough?

Re:The entire store has no movies now

[srleffler]

Hmmm. The store near me seemed to have upgraded since the last time I was in, several months ago. All the shelves were a foot or two taller. It seems this store was smart enough to expand their stock.

Re:The entire store has no movies now

[Junior J. Junior III]

So, basically, their sales are up? Well, then their fraudulent advertising campaign seems to have been very beneficial to their bottom line.

When you use...

[bryanthompson]

an ellipses (...) in the subject, you don't have to repeat your subject in the body of your message. See how much better my message flows than yours? ;-)

Re:When you use...

[drinkypoo]

See how much better it flows when you don't use words you can't spell, like ellipsis? (Ellipses is the plural of both ellipsis and ellipse, which are completely different things. Got to love this language.)

Re:When you use...

[bryanthompson]

damn, poo, you got me again :)

Re:When you use...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it flows very well at all. I hardly glance at the subject lines on Slashdot, because most of them are just "re:" anyway. Anyway, just to let you know that some of us find it annoying. I doubt that makes much difference, though, because a lot of people probably enjoy it. Well, okay then!

Re:When you use...

[drinkypoo]

It's a gift. Of course, being a pain in the ass can also be a curse, but at least I wear it well :)

Re:When you use...

[Dun Malg]

When you use... (Score:0, Offtopic)
by bryanthompson (627923) on Tuesday March 29, @03:08PM (#12083006)
(http://www.e4industries.com/bryan)
an ellipses (...) in the subject, you don't have to repeat your subject in the body of your message. See how much better my message flows than yours? ;-)

No, when you put complete sentences in the body, unlike your message, it flows better (see above).

Re:When you use...

[Anonymous Coward]

an ellipsis (...), or multiple ellipses (... ... ...), in the subject, then expect readers to continue the sentence in the body, you might be considered an idiot.

i hate frivolous lawsuits, but...

[AtariAmarok]

".... GameCrazy (a part of the Hollywood Video chainwhy should we be renting from you anymore? Blockbuster has no late fees"

I hate frivolous lawsuits, but it looks like Blockbuster's competitors might have a legitimate claim to losses due to Blockbuster's false advertising. If there were losses. It is not just the customers that can be hurt by an ad campaign that looks like "hey! Free DVD's!"

Just another ID10T consumer error...

[dukeluke]

There's always fine print, ALWAYS! Personally, Blockbuster should be able to sue all the consumers who are suing them - on basis that the consumers weren't READING the FULL restrictions.

I always knew of the restrictions - I went in, found out about the No Late Fees and asked what the limitations were - and the EMPLOYEES helped me out! Way to go BLOCKBUSTER! - This is just another case of people trying to get something for nothing...case closed.

Re:Just another ID10T consumer error...

[Stevyn]

The fine print you speak of was when they originally signed the membership contract. Those terms changed with this promotion. The reason Blockbuster got into trouble because they told the people on the sales floor not to tell the customers about the "you just bought the movie" part of the new terms.

Re:Just another ID10T consumer error...

[MightyMartian]

For most consumer protection laws, a big acid test is the intent of the advertising. It's very clear here that Blockbuster's intent was to deceive consumers into believing that they could keep the movie as long as they wanted without any extra fees.

It's the same thing as advertising made to look like invoices. At the bottom there's fine print saying this is only a sales offer, but plenty of incautious people have been very silly and sent off money. Yes, it's true that in either case the consumer ought to be more cautious, but the fact is that people are often too busy to sit there and read the paragraphs of fine print that comes along with these various offers and promotions. With consumer laws, the government is doing its part by allowing recourse for those who have been taken advantage of by dishonest marketing ploys. Blockbuster should not only be forced to refund money, but also to, at its own expense, run a 30 second spot on TV explaining that what it did was dishonest and unethical, and run it for as long as the original scam advertising campaign was on.

Re:Just another ID10T consumer error...

[AdamWeeden]

I can't speak of the training other employees might have received, but as part of my training for the No More Late fees rollout, I (and the rest of my store) watched a video presentation from Blockbuster corporate expressly stating the OPPOSITE of what you just said. At no time were we told not to reveal details except for the sake of brevity. If any customer asked for details we were asked to share as much as we knew (which included the full information about the post 7 day purchase + restocking fees) to insure the customer was comforatable with the promotion.

Its in the details

[smashin234]

I went to a blockbuster a couple days ago, and they have a big sign on their door that explains the details.

Yes, they will charge you full price for the item after 7 days. However, if you bring the movie back after 7 days you will not be charged full price. You will be charged a "restocking fee" instead of a "late fee". Granted, it wasn't that bad at $1.50, but I still laughed after reading about the "restocking fee."

Re:Its in the details

[Anonymous Coward]

So, it is fraudulent advertising. The commercials say "no late fees". People are being charged a fee for returning videos late. Seems clear cut.

Re:Its in the details

[VoidWraith]

What about the locations where they didn't show that, and simply said there wasn't any sort of late fee? In any case, they are in the wrong.

Re:Its in the details

[Flakeloaf]

Yes, but that's assuming the average American consumer has the wherewithal to actually READ the terms & conditions of an agreement before agreeing to it. It's a lot eaasier to say "ZOMG TEH SIGN SAID NO LATE FEES*****+++ what do you those eleventy paragraphs at the bottom of the ad & the poster with all the stars and crosses and shit mean?"

Appearance of Impropriety?

[sanityspeech]

Perhaps my cynicism has got the best of me, but I have a question to ask the crowd. How unlikely is it that Blockbuster is going to suffer in the court of public opinion as a result of this fiasco?

It is rather hard to find news reports of organizations that have crumbled due to such odious behavior.

...from the truth-in-advertising dept...

Hear, hear!!

Re:Appearance of Impropriety?

[GigsVT]

No one seemed to care when Blockbuster started giving very privacy invading hair strand drug tests. One of the only companies to do so. The problem with the test is that it shows any drug use in the last several months, which is none of Blockbuster's business!

Of course, I believe they are free to use this test if they want to, but the public was also free to stop patronizing such a privacy invading company, and they didn't.

Re:Appearance of Impropriety?

[Anonymous Coward]

' The problem with the test is that it shows any drug use in the last several months, which is none of Blockbuster's business!

Crime is not a private matter, and drug abuse is not a crime that expires in a matter of "several months". If you are not a drug abuser, what do you have to worry about? Makes me more likely to want to go there. They get rid of one possible aspect of scum in the employee pool.

Re:Appearance of Impropriety?

[DogDude]

The American people don't give a shit about the companies that they give their hard-earned money too. We've got Wal-Mart, Blockbuster, and just about every "Big Box" store out there doing nasty things to the community, to their employees, and to their suppliers, but the American people are simply too stupid and too selfish to care. Hell, in our area, a grocery store chain called "Food Lion" was uncovered selling rotten, re-packaged meat from their store "butcher shops". Yes, people got sick from it, yes it was disgusting, but people didn't care. Nobody batted a single eye over that. It happens each and every day. People don't care so long as they can get their cheap, shitty food, or their cheap plastic Chinese crap or their rotten Hollywood blockbuster movies CHEAP.

That's why every town in the US now looks identical. People have stopped caring about anything outside of their own wallets.

Re:Appearance of Impropriety?

[lifespan]

Crime is not a private matter, and drug abuse is not a crime that expires in a matter of "several months".
The penalty for light drug use in Australia is usually a term of community service. After that is served, your crime has 'expired'. Let me guess, you'd jump up and down if a strand of your hair was used to identify you as a potential cancer risk, then used to exclude you from gaining life insurance. All those policy holders will surely be grateful when the scum is swept out of the policyholders pool.

Re:Appearance of Impropriety?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what do they do if you're completely bald?

Re:Appearance of Impropriety?

[MightyMartian]

About a decade ago the cable companies up here in Canada came up with this reversing-bill scam... er I mean scheme. Basically you were billed for extra channels unless you explicitely opted out. The government said it was a nasty practice, but refused to do anything about it. However, the public outcry was so enormous that the cable companies backed down. Back then, quite a few areas were basically monopolies for the cable companies. Now I suspect if they tried that stunt, they'd watch at least a quarter of their customers setting up dishes.

Blockbuster's Slogan

[mikeboone]

Their slogan was honest. I remember the commercials:

"The end of late fees. The beginning of more."

I jokingly said to myself that they meant the beginning of more fees, but I guess they weren't joking and instead were being honest.

Damn Government

[brjndr]

This sickens me. How could we let the government do this?

Clearly, this should have been left to the people. (By people I mean a huge class action suit where lawyers get millions and each customer would get a free rental or some other nominal compensation. That is how the system is supposed to work.)

Stupid government. THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!!!

Re:Damn Government

[dsci]

I mean a huge class action suit where lawyers get millions and each customer would get a free rental or some other nominal compensation. That is how the system is supposed to work.

This is OT, but timely: We got a notice just yesterday that we were in a 'class' for a suit against an insurance company and the case has settled. What do we get?

A $9 credit report.

I was once also in a class in which the award was (iirc) $1.23 per member. A multimillion dollar lawsuit it was, too.

I didn't even bother sending the stupid forms in, but that probably means some lawyer got my $1.23.

Re:Damn Government

[Peyna]

The purpose of most class-action lawsuits is more to punish the wrongdoer that the reward the injured. Without the class-action system, such actions would go entirely unpunished, because no one is going to bring suit for $1. However, when 10 million people bring suit for $1, then the company can be appropriate punished.

Re:Damn Government

[An'Desha Danin]

THEY TUK YER JERB!

Re:Damn Government

[dsci]

The purpose of most class-action lawsuits is more to punish the wrongdoer

Which is exactly part of the problem: punitive lawsuits and awards, rather than real damages.

In that case with my insurance company, I was a member of the class SOLELY because I had insurance with them, and they 'forgot' to tell me I had a right to a credit report based on something or other. I suffered no tort in my mind.

Now, is this REALLY a reason to stick a company (they settled, but we can speak hypothetically) multimillion dollar punitive judgement? Seems out of whack to me.

We're not talking about a case where someone put poison in a city's drinking water or some such where there are real damages.

Re:Damn Government

[__aailob1448]

THEY TUK MA JERBBBB!

Re:Damn Government

[Triskele]

The purpose of most class-action lawsuits is more to punish the wrongdoer that the reward the injured.

Yes but in most societies, punishment is the responsibility, nay the duty, of the state. Fines go into the public coffers to be spent on the public good. What you have done instead is to privatise this and devolve such responsibility to the lawyers who end with the fines. This helps the public good how?

At participating locations....

[FrothyBitter]

The worst part is the stores that don't participate. I wanted to test out the no late fee policy, I returned 3 movies 3 days late. What do you know, I get a late fee notice in the mail. I go in all cocky... "but you don't have late fees anymore!" Ah, but they don't participate in that.

I'm so glad this happened, I was about to switch my Netflix account over to Blockbuster even though I knew deep down they were still evil. Same on me, fooled my twice.

Re:At participating locations....

[Jay Bratcher]

I hear you - I stopped going to my local Blockbuster simply because it is a franchise store, and they do not honor any of the "corporate" promotions. The sad thing is, corporate will end up footing the bill for this, and these shyster franchise stores will happily keep raping their customers...

My cell bill....

[AtariAmarok]

My cell bill is 33% higher than the advertised amount, almost all of this due to unnecessary government taxes/fees. At a minimum, they should advertise the taxed price. The difference is so large. (Just treat everything the same with the same % of sales tax, etc).

Re:My cell bill....

[csimpkin]

I think there is legislation pending in the US that would require cell phone plan prices to be quoted with the taxes included. Just like is the case with traditional phone service.

Re:My cell bill....

[brontus3927]

Care to illuminate a little bit? My bill is $39.99 before taxes/fees, and $45.33 after. That's ~13% which isn't too bad considering that my state sales tax is 6%

If your bill is higher because you pay $10 for unlimited txt messeging, and $3 for 411 calls, etc. then don't complain that your being charged higher than the advertised price.

Re:My cell bill....

[AtariAmarok]

It is $9.99 before fees. (even that is overpriced: if 2200 minutes costs $39.99, shouldn't 100 minutes just cost a couple of bucks instead of $10?) After the fees, it is around $13.00. There are no extras for the service.

Re:My cell bill....

[Fallingcow]

Look closer. Lots of those are not taxes on *you*, but taxes on parts of the Cell business that aren't directly related to the consumer.

If you read the fine print, you'll notice that many of the charges have names like "Tax on gasoline for cell-tower maintenance workers transportation fee". Ok, so most aren't quite that bad, but some are close.

They try to make it sound like the Gov is taxing you directly, but the cell companies are really just itemizing the costs that they incur paying *their own fucking taxes* on your bill, then not including those itemized parts in the quoted "price" of the service. Given how high these fees can get, and that they're mostly *not* taxes (directly) on consumers, this is very misleading.

It would be like a Brick and Mortar book store telling someone that a book costs $5, but then tacking on not only sales tax, but a $2 fee for the property tax on the store itself. Actual cost at register: $7 + sales tax.

So, in fact, this is even *worse* than what you described.

Re:My cell bill....

[anthony_dipierro]

Yeah, that part is really slimey. If I recall correctly one of the fees is a "number portability fee" or something like that. Basically, the government told them they had to make cell phone numbers portable, so they added $2 a month to everyone's bill in order to pay for that, and called it a tax, or something ridiculous like that.

That said, there are an awful lot of real taxes on your cell phone bill too. Sales tax, excise tax, regulatory fees, 911 service fee... I think my 911 service fee alone is a couple bucks a month.

Re:My cell bill....

[Triskele]

This is one of those subtle little differences between the US and the UK: over here you are not allowed to advertise ex-tax prices (unless you're wholesale, i.e., to a tax neutral business). I often get caught out in the US when the till price is more than the advertised price - usually at Starbucks wih the wrong change.

Bad Franchising Move

[brontus3927]

I haven't been in a Blockbuster's in years, but having to buy the movie sounds like something that should be on the advertising posters in small (compared to the main) print.

What surprises me the most is that the program is optional to franchises. I think autonomy of franchises in promotions is probably one of the worst moves a business can make. If McDonalds advertises the Big Macs for 10 cents but the local McD's isn't doing that sale, I'm less likely to go to any McD's anywhere because if a company can't maintain consistincy is their sales and promotions, how can I assume there will be consistency in quality? How can I assume walking into a particular branch of of a store will be worth my time and money.

Re:Bad Franchising Move

[LFS.Morpheus]

Might be true, but you typically won't find McDonald's dollar menu on the highway, or Manhattan, etc. Some places have reasons to opt-out. At least with fast food, you know the prices up front. If you don't like your total, you can always cancel.

Now maybe this shouldn't apply to all franchises and all promotions... I think that the Blockbuster promotion was particuarily devious, and the States were right in taking this action. In this case, I think locations that don't participate in big promotions should say so. Should have been corporate policy.

I say: vote with your wallet. If you don't like Blockbuster's policies, don't go there, and encourage your friends and family to do the same.

Refunding customers to whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Blockbuster will be refunding customers as part of the deal.

lol

Re:Refunding customers to whom?

[Fallingcow]

I wondered the same thing, Mr. AC.

I think the poster meant to use the noun "refund" in conjunction with some form of the verb "to give", but lost his/her train of thought at some point and used the verb form of "refund", but left part of the intended sentence intact and in such a position that it became the direct object of "refunding". Oops.

Re:Refunding customers to whom?

[JaffaKREE]

Free copies of gigli for all !

It wasn't on the stores.

[AtariAmarok]

"Agreed. On their website, it was burried in the small fine print. It definitely was not easy to find. "

I've been driving by these Blockbusters for a while now. They all have giant round signs that say "No late fees!". There is no fine print on the signs.

Not so increadble

[Anonymous Coward]

Said fictional man "Bob" wouldn't be able to rent The Increadibles since Blockbuster hasn't had a single copy in stock at my local store since it's come out.

What's the big deal?

[ssand]

Here in Canada, all members of BlockBuster recieved a brochure outlining the terms of this, and it really isn't all that surprising. Does anyone really expect a video store to allow you to keep a video for as long as you want?

Re:What's the big deal?

[CthulhuDreamer]

Here in Canada, all members of BlockBuster recieved a brochure outlining the terms of this, and it really isn't all that surprising.

In Canada, they probably assumed that people knew how to read.

Re:What's the big deal?

[bunt]

Does anyone really expect a video store to allow you to keep a video for as long as you want?

Yes. Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie!

Re:What's the big deal?

[eluusive]

Yeah, if I'm paying a monthly fee to them for it.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Moofie]

What? Whoa, look at THAT! It's a backhanded comment about how stupid Americans are! That's FREAKIN' FUNNY!

Oh wait.

Re:What's the big deal?

[lifespan]

Here in Canada, all members of BlockBuster recieved a brochure outlining the terms of this, and it really isn't all that surprising. Does anyone really expect a video store to allow you to keep a video for as long as you want?
If they specifically advertise that is the case, then yes.

If you knew it was too good to be true, Blockbuster knew it was obviously too good to be true so what was their motivation. Do you think maybe they were targeting the less intelligent half of the population who (a) might believe an odd claim like that and (b) are extremely unlikely to read the terms and conditions and (c) will, in light of this claim, most likely keep movies late and accumulate more late fees improving cash flow to keep the shareholders happy...

Once again, "caveat emptor" is not acceptable business practise when there is real competition.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone really expect a video store to allow you to keep a video for as long as you want?

Since you're up in Canada you're expectedly unfamiliar with renting movies down here in the United States. I live in Arizona and rent movies on occasion so I think I can offer some feedback.

The answer to your question is yes. Here in the United States there are video stores that allow you to keep a DVD for as long as you want with "No Late Fees". One of these stores is "Netflix".

I hope this answers your question.

Re:What's the big deal?

[doyle.jack]

Yes. Netflix does. Granted it's not a store, per say... but you still rent the movie, and get to keep it as long as you want. Where have you been for the last three years or four?

Heavy hand at a gentle game.

[_Sambo]

I tried the monthly takeout subscription with Albertsons about a year ago. After one month, they had no more movies that interested me. Blockbuster has a much larger video library, but not all locations are created equal. There is a blockbuster in the Albertson's complex near my home and it is one of the "less equal" locations. Their library is not much better than that of Albertsons.
I'd choose netflix if I didn't have Dish Network now. Oh, and if that weren't enough, I play WoW. I haven't rented a movie since December 20th.

Re:Heavy hand at a gentle game.

[Jonny_eh]

Have you ever invited a girl over to 'play some WoW'?

I started dating my girlfriend after she checked out my decent sized DVD collection and said that she had the same taste in movies. (it didn't cause her to date me, but it helped 'impress' her)

This could be one of the worst ad campaigns.

[AtariAmarok]

Remember the promo for Pepsi bottle-cap points a few years ago that included a TV ad that said that if you accumulated enough points, you could turn them in for a state-of-the-art military airplane? Pepsi was shocked, SHOCKED when someone dared to accumulate the points and demand his prize.

Blockbuster making a sensationalistic ad claim that they have no intention of backing up is quite similar.

Re:This could be one of the worst ad campaigns.

[csimpkin]

If I recall correctly, the person didn't collect enough points. You could buy points and it turned out that the value of the aircraft was greater than the cost of the ridiculous number of points needed. Pepsi was just stupid for not checking how much the aircraft actually cost.

Re:This could be one of the worst ad campaigns.

[AtariAmarok]

"If I recall correctly, the person didn't collect enough points"

He did collect enough through the loophole in the promotion which let him buy points in enough quantity to qualify for the plane (as claimed in the TV advert, anyway).

For specifics, please see the legal record of "Leonard v Pepsi". The TV claim was ""HARRIER FIGHTER 7,000,000 PEPSI POINTS". It cost him about $700,000 to buy the necessary points.

I wonder what the whiz kid who thought of this TV advertisement is doing now?

Re:This could be one of the worst ad campaigns.

[csimpkin]

Sorry, when I said "didn't collect enough points" I meant that he didn't drink 7 million bottles of pepsi. I guess it is just a matter of if you draw a distinction between 'collecting' and 'buying' points. My two points were that he didn't drink 7 million pepsis and that pepsi was stupid for only requiring 7 million points for an aircraft that cost considerably more than the actual cash value of 7 million points.

Re:This could be one of the worst ad campaigns.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez where is the real slashdot?

http://www.snopes.com/business/deals/pepsijet.as p

Re:This could be one of the worst ad campaigns.

[snuf23]

But considering the court ruled in Pepsi's favor and Leonard didn't get his Harrier, I doubt the writer who came up with the commercial conference is suffering for it.

Re:This could be one of the worst ad campaigns.

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't believe Pepsi did this. If I remember, business classes used to include the Burma Shave Trip to Mars stunt. Check out Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/business/market/mars.asp

Re:This could be one of the worst ad campaigns.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what makes you think someone who wrote an ad which cost legal fees, was embarrassing to Pepsico, and potentially put Pepsi liable for false advertising would not be getting fired for something like that. Hey, everyone is expendable--easier to fire someone than, gasp, fix the business cultural problem. (Except the CEOs; they get golden parachutes.)

Re:This could be one of the worst ad campaigns.

[snuf23]

Because although he may have lost his job with Pepsi, the story the resulting broo-haha over the ad would have been enough for some other media outlet to pick him up.
I work in media, things like this happen all the time.

WTF? Funny?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's insightful! I download busty asian porn!

Re:WTF? Funny?

[Anonymous Coward]

... and THAT's insightful? Wow.

From the fine article...

[xocp]

To quote the article: Thereafter, if a consumer returned the rental, he/she would be credited for the selling price, but would be charged a "restocking fee" of $1.25 or more. The part about charging for a never-returned movie makes sense to me; but the "restocking fee" obviously is not in line with their advertising claims. I wonder what this $1.25 cost represents?

Re:From the fine article...

[Subliminal Fusion]

An incentive to return the movie on time...

Re:From the fine article...

[arodland]

Or perhaps a fee, which is assessed when you return the movie late.

Re:From the fine article...

[superjaded]

A restocking fee is exactly what should sound like it's for.

It's not compensation for keeping the movie late. If that were the case, it would make a lot more sense if we just forgot about the confusing "sell and refund" system we have now and continued on with our "Extended Viewing Fees" system.

A movie rental (DVD) is $3.99 plus tax. A Game rental can range anywhere from $4.99 to $6.99 plus tax. BBI is losing anywhere from $2 to $5 on each rental period a customer keeps a rental out. If a customer keeps a two day rental out for three weeks, long enough for it to auto-sell but short enough for the refund to take place.. we have already lost out on 10 potential rental cycles which is over $40.00 lost on ONE rental item.

A restocking fee actually represents more than simply the manpower it takes to put a movie back on the shelf as well.

Firstly, there's cost incurred by transferring a rental product as PRP. This is done to make inventory correct -- it's technically no longer available for rent, so temporarily transferring it as a Previously Rented Product and then selling that PRP game or movie to the account is the only real way to sell a movie or game to an account whilst keeping inventory accurate.

Secondly, when the movie is returned, it price of the movie or game is refunded to the account, and then the movie or game is transferred from PRP back to rental.

I guess this makes little sense to most people, but there is cost incurred from the transferring process. No, it's not about manpower. I guess it has to do with the store's shrink. More shrink = bad.

Another part of the restocking fee is the fact that various methods are used in order to get into contact with a customer to make them aware that they still have rentals out and that they are late. Think about it .. it costs what? 37 cents to mail something out via USPS. A customer should receive (or, atleast we send them out) two automated phone calls and two post-card notices in the mail before their rentals are auto-sold to their account. Just taking the postage in consideration, THAT is over half of the cost incurred by making sure the customer is properly informed that that have late rentals on their account.

Or, atleast, that's what we were told in our meeting

netflix model

[xant]

This is precisely what the Netflix model is. They send you a movie, you keep it as long as you want. Along with the 2 movies we received recently I've got a DVD next to the TV we've been meaning to watch for 3 months. Netflix doesn't care. You send it back when you're done, you get another DVD. The only thing sending the movie back does is refresh the choices you have next to your TV.

Buried underneath those somewhere are a couple of DVDs we had when we closed one of our Netflix accounts to change the name it was under. That was over a year ago. Netflix doesn't care.

Blockbuster introduced "no late fees" as a direct answer to the Netflix model.. at least, that's what people apparently thought. They only wanted to create the impression that they were like Netflix, obviously, without actually doing any of the work.

Re:netflix model

[ArmorFiend]

Along with the 2 movies we received recently I've got a DVD next to the TV we've been meaning to watch for 3 months.

If you're the jerk holding onto their one copy of Battlestar Galactica, return the damn thing already!!! Sheesh! I've been waiting on that for three months!

Re:netflix model

[anethema]

No real reason to think that since blockbuster has a totally seperate plan to cover this business model.

my post here has a link and informationless blurb

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=144183&cid=1 20 86554

Re:netflix model

[RandomWhim]

Blockbuster introduced "no late fees" as a direct answer to the Netflix model.. at least, that's what people apparently thought. They only wanted to create the impression that they were like Netflix, obviously, without actually doing any of the work."

Create the impression that they were like Netflix...without actually doing any of the work?! They have Blockbuster Online. A direct competitor to the Netflix model, and much improved upon (cheaper monthly fees, 2 free in-store rentals a month, etc).

Blockbuster's No Late Fees has nothing to do with Netflix. That's like saying McDonalds is starting to sell chicken nuggets in a bun to compete with Burger King's Whopper, when they already have the Big Mac.

It's a totally seperate campaign aimed at giving them an edge over other in-store rental businesses. Anyone who "apparently thought" otherwise should be slapped soundly.

Good riddance

[Schemat1c]

I have always hated this company and it's a pleasure watching the painful death of this bloated beast called Blockbuster. I will joyfully dance on their grave after the final breath is gasped.

Re:Good riddance

[jefe7777]

to the parent, i agree. BLOCKBUSTER SUCKS DONKEY BALLS.

I could post a long & detailed history of their crap customer service, but I'm too tired.

I do, still remember in 1998, when I'd go to Blockbuster after Blockbuster, and it was the same old tired line. "People don't want to rent DVDs. That's why we don't have them" ...I had to go to a competitor.

Blockbuster isn't an innovator. Just a bloated corp resting on their hind ends.

How about their movies by mail? Oh that's original.

Never trust these ad campaigns

[AtariAmarok]

Blockbuster: No late fees.

McDonalds: Our fried lard-balls are fat free!

NBC: Must-see TV

Click the monkey and win a free iPod

Napster 14 day trial: Download a million songs for FREE

Nigeria: Give us $14,000 and we'll give you millions.

Slashdot: Our moderation system is fair and balanced.

Fox: Our news is fair and balanced.

On the other side, you have one of the most true ad campaigns in history, for the Eagle car company: "Eagle: Not intended for the general public". The general public wholeheartedly agreed.

Blockbuster

[ehiris]

This whole rent free thing came out of the fact that they are desperate for customers who they turn down at the counter.

They live with the impression that they lend gold jewelry and not movies on 25 cents media. I went to a Blockbuster in my new area where I wanted to open a account. They asked for a credit card and I gave them a VISA debit card. They turned me down because they didn't want a card which has check card written on it. They wanted an actual credit which I didn't want to give them. Next I proceeded to down the road to Hollywood Video who didn't want a Credit Card and where I rented my movies ever since. This was about 2 years ago. I spend 5 to 10$ a week on movie rentals which Blockbuster could have gotten if they weren't so anal.

Re:Blockbuster

[panaceaa]

I have a similar experience with Hollywood Video. I've never even opened an account with them. When I go in I just give them my California drivers license, and they let me take out the video. I have no idea why they let me do this but I don't want to question it.

Re:Blockbuster

[Anonymous Coward]

They do give the license back, right? :) Incidentally, my Blockbuster account (which I use once in a blue moon, mostly to let someone else borrow something when we're at a Blockbuster in the middle of nowhere) is backed by a Visa check card. I can see why they'd want a credit card, but I didn't have any problem. It's probably something at the individual franchise.

Re:Blockbuster

[stanmann]

I had a similar experience, I had/have a cellular phone as my primary voice contact. I made the mistake of mentioning to blockbuster(several years ago) that the contact number was a cellular, and they refused to rent to me, the Hollywood accross the road had no such qualms. I imagine Blockbuster has changed their policy since I am not that unique anymore...

Automatic Purchase Program and Franchise Revolt

[HackingNetflix]

They just changed late fees to an automatic purchase program. Worse, when you return the movie after you've "bought" it, they give you a store credit and sock you with a handling fee.

Up to 20% of stores are franchises and many revolted against the "No More Late Fees" program, causing customers to be totally confused. "No More Late Fees" commercials running on all channels and yet my local Blockbuster still charges late fees?

I've been covering this story and more at: http://www.hackingnetflix.com/

- MikeK @ HackingNetflix.com

Re:Automatic Purchase Program and Franchise Revolt

[Anonymous Coward]

The chain/franchise distinction is amusing. I tried to return a Lord of the Rings (fullscreen non-extended) disc someone bought for me as a gift. This disgusting wall-eyed hick of a woman tells me that they can't take it because they are a franchise and not a chain Blockbuster. Had an amusing "conversation" about how the hell to tell the difference before she said that I should go return it to Wal*Mart, because they take anything.

Sigh.

Re:Automatic Purchase Program and Franchise Revolt

[AdamWeeden]

That's just plain untrue. Any store that is participating in the No More Late fees promotion should gladly refund the price of the movie back to your credit card (minus the restocking fee of $1.25).

Re:Automatic Purchase Program and Franchise Revolt

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true if you don't have the credit card with you that you used to open the account. Read the details of the settlement. This is one of the problems that the Attorney Generals had with the promotion.

Re:Automatic Purchase Program and Franchise Revolt

[AdamWeeden]

That is a possible, but inlikely scenario. How many people have active credit cards in their name that they can not locate? Besides, even in this event, explaining it to the manager would likely get you a refund anyway (speaking as a former manager at Blockbuster).

Quit whining

[crnbrdeater]

I agree the full terms were not readily clear in the advertising but that is to be expected. They were, however, readily available and easily understood in the terms and conditions section. IANAL and it was still easy to understand the limitations to their offer. My thought process was,"Wow, that is a really good deal. I am probably missing something so I had better go find out what." Turns out I was right but it was easy to figure out. It was not like Blockbuster was trying to hide the fact you couldn't just keep the video forever.

While the corporation needs to be honest/ethical it is just as much part of the consumer's job to be educated.

Re:Quit whining

[lifespan]

It was not like Blockbuster was trying to hide the fact you couldn't just keep the video forever
By stating a fact in the wordy terms and conditions and implying the exact opposite in the terse advertisement, it is, by definition, deceptive advertising.

While the corporation needs to be honest/ethical it is just as much part of the consumer's job to be educated.
Absolutely not. Advertising should be aimed at the lowest common denominator, and those poor folk can't even read. There is a far greater onus on the corporation to be honest, ethical and TRANSPARENT. There is no onus on consumers to have a graduate level education so that they can understand what a savvy user like yourself only managed to suspect on first reading. Those who advocate "caveat mptor" to justify coporate deception are invariably highly educated, self centred and completely and utterly devoid of any empathy. Just because a practise is not illegal doesn't make it good business. Check out how empty any Blockbuster store is and see if that is also what the "shareholders" want?

Re:Quit whining

[HomerJayS]

Re: While the corporation needs to be honest/ethical it is just as much part of the consumer's job to be educated.

True, but what Blockbuster did was essentially a classic "Bait and switch" tactic. Bait the customer into the store with an implied promise of keeping a movie for as long as you want (ala NetFix model).

Only after the customer was in the store were the true terms of the 'deal' revealed.

Other examples of the modern bait and switch that tick me off are Best Buy's loss leader items in their ads with the "while supplies last" disclaimer. With each location deliberately stocking only 2-3 of the sale items.

The Restocking Fee is hardly a "Late Fee".....

[Anonymous Coward]

In defense to Blockbuster...but not to troll, the restocking fee is a set fee. It is not dependent on how late the movie is and so if you keep it for months on end and then choose to return it, you will only be out the fixed $1.25 (that's the fee in AZ). That would hardly be considered a "late fee".

If you look at it that way, you could consider renting the movie for $4, allow them to charge you the additional $17 (sale price is based on the DVD's "used" value), and then own it.....one day you can choose to "sell" it back to Blockbuster, and it will have only costed you $1.25. Not a bad ROI in my book. Try getting that much on eBay!

"If you don't like the system...make it work for you."

Re:The Restocking Fee is hardly a "Late Fee".....

[Kredal]

After a month, the movie is yours. They take it off their list, and won't take it back...

Re:The Restocking Fee is hardly a "Late Fee".....

[doyle.jack]

That would hardly be considered a "late fee".

Maybe not a fee that is increased based on how long you keep the movie.. but it is a fee based on the fact that the movie is returned late. IMHO, that would be a late fee.

The "movie pass" is lame too.

[DAE51D]

I was taking care of a sick friend, so I picked up a bunch of DVD's from the Blockbuster across the street from her. They guy told me it was cheaper to buy the movie pass for $16/month and rent unlimited movies two at a time. I figured, that would be a good deal. Then I went to use the pass at my local Blockbuster six miles away, and they infomed me that the pass is only good at the store I bought it from -- even though your card is good at any store in the country (my card is from CA and I live in WA now). fsck them. no wonder everyone has switched to Netflix.

Re:The "movie pass" is lame too.

[kd5ujz]

I am not saying this is right, but it makes sense. They dont seem to have a linked network. When I have had mega late fees, and not mega bucks, I have gone to another blockbuster to rent a movie "late fee free". If your card allowed you to rent two at a time, you could rent two at a time from every blockbuster. I have paid late fees from a blockbuster in California at a blockbuster in Texas, but they have to call them, and give them all the details.

Who would believe it?

[AtariAmarok]

"Sure, you're right. But who would actually believe this?"

Looks like we agree that the ads are rather deceptive. I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as the next guy, but it is not frivolous to sue over late-free harassment when you respond to a "no late fees" ad. What part of "no" do you not understand?

I still think it's a good deal

[Mandatory Default]

Mark me as a troll, but I have to side with Blockbuster on this one. Blockbuster mailed me a complete description of the new program, which outlined in detail how the whole thing worked, including the restocking fee. (I read the whole thing when I got it.) If people didn't read it, tough. Anybody who thinks that they get *anything* for free in this day and age deserves their fate.

Even so, if you go over the week and they sell you the movie, that's not a late fee - you received something tangible in exchange. Worst comes to worst, you return it for $1.50 restocking fee. Under the old scheme, if you returned it three weeks late on a two day rental, the charge would have been over $40. Sounds like a win to the consumer to me.

Re:I still think it's a good deal

[pete6677]

I had been saying from the beginning that the American public would be too stupid for a system like this, and it looks like I was right. Hey I know, I'll rent a movie under the new no late fee program and return it 3 years later with no extra charge, wow what a store, those Blockbuster folks are so nice!

Re:I still think it's a good deal

[Anonymous Coward]

That business model could work if the studios charged less for the movies. Considering Blockbuster is owned by an entity that owns a major studio, it's not at all impossible that they will do that in the future.

Re:I still think it's a good deal

[AdamWeeden]

Actually Blockbuster split (or is in process of splitting) with Viacom, and is now its own corporate entity.

Re:I still think it's a good deal

[freeweed]

I'll rent a movie under the new no late fee program and return it 3 years later with no extra charge

Well, there's nothing inconsistent with that statement. Which is why this lawsuit was filed, and why Blockbuster is having to back down.

Nothing to do with people being stupid, this is simply false advertising.

Re:I still think it's a good deal

[simpsop]

As the spouse of a BBI employee, and a frequent visitor to their stores, the No late Fees terms and conditions were clearly posted at each register and were being explained in detail by all cashiers in my observation. Anyone who sued because they were too stupid to read the details under the banner or ask for clarification should just cancel their memberships. The company is better off without whiners and complainers who misinterpret policies to their own benefit as customers. I know of customers prior to the No Late Fees deal that had late fees removed from their accounts 10+ times claiming they "didn't know they had to return it on time instead of 5 days later". each time, the policy was explained to them, yet they all lie, connive, and cheat to cover up for their mistakes... Oh NO... THEY COULD NEVER DO ANY WRONG, IT MUST BE THE BIG,BAD COMPANY! All the complainers, go rent at Hollywood or somewhere else, see if they put up with your crap too.

Commercial

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ever watched the KBlockbuster commercial, while they scream no late fees.... The print in small blue text on a light blue background that franchise stores may not apply.... see your local store for details...

thats bull, Blockbuster got analraped cuase they tried to say two things at once in the commercial!

if only politicians could be analraped by people when they say stuff like that. say one thing, vote/speak another l8r on!!

let the anals of analraping begin :)

Am I the only person who thinks...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that the concept of no late fees is a terrible idea? From what I've seen (and maybe they conduct things differently here, I don't know) the existence of late fees protects the customer as well. I've had situations where I've wanted to rent a game from Blockbuster, but their only copy was out. I've checked back week after week, sometimes several days in a row to make sure I didn't miss it arriving back and lose the rental to someone else, just to try and get that game. Eventually it got returned, but frankly the only hope I had that it would be returned ANYWHERE near the due back date was the threat of late fees to whatever bastard rented it. Without late fees, what incentive do they have at all to return it outside of the 30 days or whatever? As someone who always returns their stuff on time and has no problem with doing so, I hate this idea.

These people also believe in the Easter bunny...

[Omega]

I don't know why these people think that "no late fees" means you don't have to return the movie when it's due anymore. Just because you don't have to pay a penalty fee doesn't mean the rules cease to apply.

And the restocking fee for a rental is a lot less bullshit than the restocking fees at Best Buy for something I actually bought!

I LOVE the no late fees policy. I usually return my movies on time, but there's always that one time you forget to take it in on the way to work and you can only drop it off in the evening. Now I don't get bitten by the "hour-late" fee.

You misunderstand

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep looking in my mailbox, but there are no Blockbuster DVDs there

They were not pulling DVDs out of their mail box, they were pulling DVDs out of the Blockbuster Dropbox. This isn't false advertising I assure you, those drop boxes are filled with circular gold!

No "late fees" now in Calgary too...

[Hamster Lover]

Although I haven't heard of any lawsuits in Canada.

It seems like a coincidence, but since the inception of the no late fees policy I have never seen Blockbuster less busy. It is a veritable ghost town at my local stores, even on Tuesdays the big release day of the week.

Rogers Video, their main competitor and where I rent now, is always busy. I haven't rented from Blockbuster for quite some time as they never seem to have the movie or game I want in stock and Rogers Video has a much better selection of older and hard to find movies.

Re:No "late fees" now in Calgary too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevertheless, I hope your nation sues Blockbuster as has my state down here in America. This is because the Blockbuster corporation has told you there are "no late fees" but in fact there are. The corporation has wronged you, and your local government should fight back on your behalf.

If you wanted to buy the movie, fucking BUY IT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't rent the movie for $3.99 and then claim ignorance that you thought there were no fees for returning the movie 3 years later. That's called being an asshat.

true somewhat, but

[Phil Urich]

even though I realize only morons would fall for it, it still annoyed me. Maybe I'll feel bad for them, maybe I'll just sigh, maybe I'll even laugh, depends on what kind of person I am; but on the company's side, what they were doing (well, still are, I assume; oops, I didn't RTFA, but that doesn't make me all that atypical here . . . but take this, I'm going to go off and read it right now . . . yeah, nothing about actually stopping the advertisements, aside from the ones in store windows) is pretty evil, willingly taking advantage of people's stupidity.

We can't always protect stupid people; this being slashdot, alot of people here are probably like "hah! stupid people! they get what they deserve", but when we see companies doing things like this, it makes sense to say "no, that's not the kind of things we wan't people to be able to get away with in our society." We shouldn't turn a blind eye towards lies and misleading half-truths just because we ourselves find it damn easy to spot them for what they are.

screw blockbuster, stop using the crooks!

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped using them 2 years ago. They screwed me out of late fees. I wasn't late. Any chance I get to speak ill of them, I will. Never, never, never use this crooked company.

My biggest problem

[Subliminal Fusion]

My biggest problem with this isn't the $1.50 restocking fee, but that they no longer have a lot of the latest movies I want to see in stock. I'm signed up for the Blockbuster.com NetFlix rip-off mostly because of the 2 free in-store rentals (which are nice when I decide on a whim that I want to see a certain movie). However, that's really not doing much for me if they don't have what I want in stock... Hopefully it's just growing pains with the new terms and they'll iron things out soon.

Re:My biggest problem

[kd5ujz]

I have experienced the same thing. I think its just a phase to slow down Netflix, but who knows. I would rather just pay the late fees.

Netflix

[Macrat]

Now you know why to avoid Blockbuster and go with Netflix.

Only 47 states?

[sfjoe]

I'm just wondering which three states can't be bothered to prosecute for false and misleading sales tactics?
I just want to be sure and not trust any claims made by businesses in those three states.

Re:Only 47 states?

[/dev/trash]

Well New Jersey didn't SETTLE, it's proceeding with the lawsuit. I assume the other 2 states are doing the same.

i knew it

[Anonymous Coward]

Blockbuster will be refunding customers as part of the deal.

Sweet now I'm going to take all the DVD's I don't like anymore to the store and say "You made me buy these!" and then get like $30 back for each movie. THen I'll use all that money to rent movies for $1/day at the local vid store.

Pay no

[AtariAmarok]

What are you, a tailor or something? Will you make me wear polyester, or plaid, or something?

Pay no attention to Mr. Garak. He is just a lowly tailor.

Re:Pay no

[Class Act Dynamo]

I must applaud your obscure DS9 reference.

Pay in Pennies!

[CyberGarp]

The US says that pennies are acceptible forms of payment. I went to a block buster and a big sign said "5 day rentals". Turns out they really meant 4 1/2 so I had to pay a late fee. They have a history of deception, so they deserve to pay. Why print a big sign or a big ad, when reality is slightly different. So I paid in pennies and counted very slowly and very loudly and never went back. When interrupted, I started the count over. End of relationship with these slimeballs.

Re:Pay in Pennies!

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent idea. Because the marketers who came up with the idea and the executives that approved it are the ones working the counter.

Re:Pay in Pennies!

[lifespan]

Let me assure you that if he walked into the head office of Blockbuster to talk about the issue he would still only get to talk to the receptionist and she would still provide the official big business black box of ignorance. She won't have any answers and she won't have access to anyone that does....at the moment they're all in meetings....

If you must cornhole someone in a store, make it the manager because at least he's being paid well to cop the blowback from his bosses dishonest advertising.

Re:Pay in Pennies!

[CyberGarp]

Yeah, but enough @ssh*les show up and do it, I think management eventually gets the point. Even better, if people just boycott lying bastards in general, they'll go all out of business. Too many people just roll over and take what their given, and think it's okay. I for have made an @ss of myself on occasions where someone has taken advantage of me. Sure the clerk is the dumb stick who get its, but he's a representative of the company and the only one I am allowed to do business with. Or one can go off and file class action suits. Personally I prefer to voice my opinion in such matters with the loudest fart possible, and not do business with such parties again.

NO LATE FEES

[Anonymous Coward]

No = None, Zero, Zilch
Late = After the due date, Not on schedule
Fees = Monetary charges, money, currency

They were charging late fees. It's not idiot consumers, it's idiot marketers who thought they could bend the consumers over.

Re:NO LATE FEES

[dukeluke]

Hmmm...all of you brought up intriguing thoughts; and yes - I was slightly flamebait ;-) But, intentionally - I wanted people to read that and realize that consumers should be much more cautious.

And the intentions of Blockbuster to mislead are truly up for interpretation - under my interpretation, they were slightly (ever so slightly) misleading. BUT, but the consumer could quite easily verify the limitations and restrictions of the NO LATE FEES campaign.

I'm sorry that I don't properly recall the commercials and advertisements regarding this campaign (I don't recall the fine print availability). Yet, I feel that had Blockbuster merely mentioned "Certain Restrictions Apply" and "Store Participation Voluntary, Check Store for Details" -- had Blockbuster made these two short claims, then I feel this entire suit is blown out of proportion.

Yes the consumer has certain rights to information and to not be unduly misled, yet the consumer also has the responsibility to properly determine the contract regarding the sale (or transaction).

You can call me uncompassionate all you like, yet I feel the burden of not-getting-scammed lies squarely on the shoulders of the consumer (provided the restrictions and limitations are readily made available).

While I'm ranting, let's pull an analogy from the HOT COFFEE campaign that most restaraunts try to serve. Coffee is meant to be served HOT, isn't it? Then why do we need a WARNING for such? Furthermore, today I purchased a couple bottles of Dr. Pepper and to my utter surprise, I was given a "WARNING - Bottle Cap is under pressure and may cause bodily harm when opened..." (exact wording is in the recycle bin at school). Point being, I purchased a bottle of soda (which includes carbonated water and flavored syrup) - and I was being warned that the known contents produce a fizz (sometimes strong) that can project the bottle cap. Quite hilarious and unnecessary, IMHO.

Then again, I am adept with literacy and technology. I have applied my mind (a most gracious gift to me) and I daily use it to observe my surroundings. Next thing you know there will be a warning on my Jeep regarding a roll-over hazard at high-speeds and on un-even terrain (wait...it's already there)...

"The end of late fees. The beginning of more."

[sulli]

it just means that now fees are levied on time.

Missed point

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing that it seems a lot of people have over looked is that before the no more late fees promotion after a movie was 7 days late I not only had to pay the late fee of $35 but I had to return the movie, even worse my girlfriend forgot about a movie she rented when she returned it a month overdue the video store told her she owed $100(30 x 3.50) in late fees and could not keep the movie.

In my opinion saying blockbuster needs to actually say "even though this is the end of late fees you will still have to return the item you RENTED within a reasonable time or buy said item" is like telling McDonalds they need to put "Caution hot!" on every square inch of their coffee cups or they may get sued.

Oh wait that did happen.

Common Sense... A thing of the past I guess.

McDonald's lawsuit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you too, can spill hot coffee on your own lap, and then sue innocent people for fun and profit.

Fine print?

[AtariAmarok]

"So, we penalize Blockbuster, who were trying to offer a service that I would have been glad to use had I lived within a reasonable distance from one of their outlets, because people are fucking stupid, or illiterate, or both?"

What part excuses Blockbuster for charging ever-increasing late fees far in excess of the cost of the movie while their signs said "no late fees" ?

Re:Fine print?

[Zooka]

"No late fees" means no fees, period. No matter how long you keep the rental. Right? Even if I decide to keep the rental for 4 years! Right?!?

Next up: a class action suit against restaurants that advertise "All you can eat buffet for $X.XX". Nothing on the sign indicates that you aren't purchasing all the food you can eat ...for the rest of your life!

Seriously, you have to be incredibly naive or stupid to not know that there are sure to be conditions to the offer. Anyone with any common sense would naturally inquire about the stipulations.

Re:Fine print?

[Headcase88]

No similarities what so ever. The rules of "All you can eat buffets" have been firmly established. The new No Late Fees thing is new. Are you stupid for thinking that there are no late fees? Yes, but the fact of the matter is that Blockbuster is making that ridiculous promise, and they can't use fine print to escape that promise.

If I said "Brand New Dodge Vipers for $15" it might be obvious to you that this sale is impossible and there is a catch, but I still made that promise, I can't just show up at a buyer's house a week later and say "all right, here are $50 000 of mandatory fees you must now pay". Even if the $50 000 surcharge was in the contract, false advertising laws are going to get me to protect consumers.

Meanwhile, "All you can eat buffets" have

1. Been firmly established, everyone knows what it means
2. Have an actual purpose by giving the consumer a new method of purchase

Since "No Late Fees" has no real purpose above confusing people into going to BlockBuster, they should be nailed on it. "Reduced Late Fees" would have saved them a world of hurt. I'm sure any competent analyst would've have seen this coming.

Re:Fine print?

[Kevin Mitnick]

and most "all you can eat buffets" have rules prominently displayed where you will seee them, i.e., above the food bar. Usually you will see rules like "please limit your stay to X amount of time", and "no wasting food, or you may be charged for the wasted amount"

Re:Fine print?

[devilspgd]

The difference is that you aren't charged an additional fee AND expected to return the product.

Re:Fine print?

[dclydew]

Well, it seemed clear to me... especially when there were signs, flyers and 3-fold handouts that all stated the details. Not to mention the Blockbuster clerks that state the policy every time you rent a frickin movie.

The problem, I think is not so much Blockbuster as...

Stupid Talking Monkeys

Re:Fine print?

[Andrewkov]

The "All you can eat" places hate it when you return the product.

Re:Fine print?

[Anonymous Coward]

or "All you MAY eat".

Blockbuster: the Late Fees business model

[JimatForemat]

I think this paradigm is how Blockbuster makes the bulk of its profits. One way of doing that was when they extended the hours of returns, from noon on the due date to midnight on the due date. The register monkeys began saying that the due date had changed! and now the movies weren't due until the next day! Most everyone thought that actually meant that one could keep the movies an extra day and that they would be due on noon of that next day, as it had always been.

I fail to see any reason to make a change like that except to trick the customers into racking up more late fees.

Yes.

[DAldredge]

If the damn multimillion dollar ad campaign promises me a million dollars per double cheese burger I better get my million dollars.

Blockbuster owes me $50?

[JohnG307]

I was one of the many many fools who unwittingly assumed that "no late fees" was a national promotion. Unfortunately, when I rented six movies and returned them six days later, I found I had $50 in late fees, which was obviously a huge kick in the pants. Does this mean I'm entitled to getting (part of) my money back for it not being adequately disclosed tat not all locations were participating in this policy? How would I go about making sure I'm not left out of this?

Re:Blockbuster owes me $50?

[op00to]

... call your lawyer?

Re:Blockbuster owes me $50?

[tomstdenis]

Chances are you'll get a 50$ in store credit.

And dude, just because you *can* take a few days extra doesn't mean you should.

Just keep in mind every time you go to get a "not-latest-mpaa-mandated hit" [e.g. classic] and it's not there ... it could be someone who is thinking like you. oh I can have it forever...

Tom

Re:Blockbuster owes me $50?

[JohnG307]

A two-week long spring break (deserted campus) in a small town with nothing to do, no car, and a 45 minute walk to the Blockbuster. I should be commended for not having kept them longer.

And they were, by the way, all "latest-mpaa-mandated hit" rentals.

But of course

[AtariAmarok]

"So, you figure that a fee that is charged if and only if the video is late is not a late fee?"

It is merely a delayed mandatory financial assessment. How dare you assume it to be anything like a "late fee" !!!

Re:But of course

[Reality Master 101]

No, it's not a "delayed mandatory financial assessment". It's "the customer decided to keep the video, so we're selling it to them, instead of renting it to them."

You do realize that it's possible to buy videos, right?

Re:But of course

[__aailob1448]

Good grief! Somebody mod parent as funny already!

Dubious Advertisements

[00 Agent Kid]

What? A commercial that didn't tell the whole truth? I didn't see that one coming.

Re:And this is important because...Reply to Insult

[Nom du Keyboard]

Not everyone who reads /. does nothing with his spare time but download illegally pirated movies and warez programs.

You're the one tarring all downloaders with your claim that they only download illegal material. The original post simply said entertainment.

The Auto Industry

[rumblin'rabbit]

I don't know why they pick on BlockBuster when the auto industry gets away with murder.

New car dealerships generally advertise Manufacturer's Recommended Sale Price (MRSP). This price has nothing to do with the price they will ask you to pay.

Dealers are free to add any damn thing they want to the MRSP. Taxes, of course, but they might also to tack on:

• Freight charges.
• Advertising fees.
• Security programs.

And god knows what else. The extra costs can add up to thousands of dollars. In other words, the "advertised price" has nothing to do with the real price. It's a complete fiction.

Granted there are a few dealerships (eg, Saturn) which are far more honest about the total price. And of course, one is free to barter - in most dealerships you would be stupid not to.

Still, the new car industry is sleazy. I can only assume they have politicians in their back pockets to get away with such deceptive selling practises.

Re:The Auto Industry

[lifespan]

" I don't know why they pick on BlockBuster when the auto industry gets away with murder."

Let me answer that in two words, "campaign contribution". Actually, another two words I'd like to add are "political prostitutes".

Re:The Auto Industry

[Anonymous Coward]

When you buy a car, you know exactly how much you are paying when you drive it off the lot.

Re:And this is important because...Reply to Insult

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you missed his sarcasm.

It's about telling the truth

[teslatug]

This is shouldn't be about whether the customers were savy enough to realise that there would be a catch or not, this is about keeping companies in line with their advertising. I'm tired of companies saying anything they want as long as they have a 2pt, 10 page disclaimer to go along with it.

I get irritated every time a company wants to sell you something, and they tell you that you are getting something else for free. How could it be free if you have to pay in order to get it. Yes, it makes sense that you have to pay for things, but why should they be allowed to lie to people all the time?

a contract is a contract is a contract

[Anonymous Coward]

This is another lawsuit where the public or a person is saying "We're too stupid to understand something that is simple so you owe us money".

The terms were very clear in the pamphlet and on the signs. It was written out with very simple wording that was easy to understand: No late fees but after 7 extra days you buy it. If you return it within 30 days, you get store credit but have to pay $1.25.

I don't see how this is all that complicated.

When you rent a movie you enter into a contract. All the terms are right there for you to read before you sign.

I am amazed that Blockbuster was unable to defend this in court. There are countless other circumstances where people enter into contracts without reading the terms and are forced by courts to honor the contract.

Early cell phone termination fees are a good example. You can NOT win a case by saying "I didn't know there was an early termination fee because I didn't rewally read the contract that I signed" and expect a judge or jury to agree with you.

I have ZERO sympathy for anyone who didn't bother to read the terms before they took advantage of the system. Contracts are one of the most basic and fundamental appliances of our legal system. People participating in contracts have a responsibility to honor the terms, period.

Re:These people also believe in the Easter bunny..

[Moofie]

If it's such a good service, then they'll keep offering it, after clarifying their policies.

Whether it's "good" or not is up to you. The court decided the advertising was deceptive. The deception does not need to work on you for this to be both a true statement and illegal.

My GF got so mad at the stock levels...

[jasong911]

she got a Netflix account...

no late fees hmm

[3.09 a hour]

so you just get a fee.. if your late... not that i looked into it (my blockbuster membership is next to my condom in my wallet, if that tells you anyything) but i certinly didnt know about this 'service' of blockbuster selling the video to me. I think the real argument here is, blockbuster is 1-2$ higher than anyother place in town anyway, so i might as well rent from them, and have it a day late (as usual)

Pathetic

[BioCS.Nerd]

This case should have been thrown out of court. Any moron who couldn't figure out that some strings must be attached should just be shot and pissed on. When something sounds too good to be true, chances are it is and a little investigation may be in need.

Re:Pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

This case should have been thrown out of court. Any moron who couldn't figure out that some strings must be attached should just be shot and pissed on.

Netflix offers rentals for $17.95/month with no late fees in any form. Any moron who can't figure that some strings must be attached should be shot and pissed on.

Oh wait, there aren't any.

If there ever was a crooked company in need of being slapped back into line, Blockbuster is it. Their business model isn't based on renting movies, but rather collecting fees. Faced with a competing model such as Netflix's, they don't attempt to improve their service. Instead, they resort to outright deceiving people.

There's a reason why I'll never rent from a Blockbuster, even though there's one literally a block away from my home.

So, a Bio CS program? I take it they didn't offer any electives on social skills.

Blockbuster model flawed

[Anonymous Coward]

My thought is that blockbuster is going to eventually move to the netflix model. I find that since they implemented their new model, ie no late fees, the availability of first run rentals has gone way down. Netflix has it right, they only order as many units as people have put in requests for. This way their not stocking 50 copies of some crappy movie per store. They are throwing in 2 free in store rental coupons per month, but I only use those for PS2 games.

Re:No no no...

[symbolic]

You have to put some spin on it....

"Enjoy our new no-hassle purchase plan!"

The cell companies were not first

[AtariAmarok]

The cell companies were not first with the sneaky ridiculous fees. How about "Ma Bell" charging to something that costs them nothing: keep your number unlisted? Even worse, they (last time I knew) charged extra for "touch tone", even though touch tone calls are CHEAPER for the system than "pulse dial" calls.

Re:The cell companies were not first

[anthony_dipierro]

Those are optional services, so I don't see the big deal with that. I agree with you that cell companies weren't the first with sneaky fees though. In fact, the regular phone companies generally have all the same fees as I listed.

As for the unlisted number thing, just think of it as a rebate for letting them list you in their phone book.

Re:The cell companies were not first

[AtariAmarok]

Phone book? What's that? I pretty much stopped using them several years ago when they decided to stop alphabetizing the listings.

$17.95?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an interesting point, because blockbuster movies are not your run-of-the-mill home-entertaiment license. they are special licensed for rental, and IIRC them suckers are like 70 dollars each.

If I run a video store, I'd be sure to rent a ton of stuff from blockbusters and never return them (basically buying their stock at a fraction of the real cost).

I wonder if the license title transfers over in this bid to charge the price of the movie. Maybe there is a legal loophole somewhere one can really fuck up blockbuster with.

Needs to be done away with.

[kd5ujz]

It is a flawed system, and will ultimatly lead to blockbuster losing customers. They have trouble keeping new ( 1-5 weeks) movies on the shelves. I have just about given up on blockbuster in favor of Hollywood Video.

What does Netflix do?

[pentalive]

If you don't return a movie.

Re:What does Netflix do?

[/dev/trash]

As long as you pay the monthly subscription... not a thing. Of course if you don't send one back, you don't get another in return.

Not in Canada!!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an old law in Canada prohibiting just this.

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws.php?site=laws&cid=31
(2nd one from top) /too lazy to log in...

not so bad

[tgibbs]

Although they charge you full purchase price, this is canceled when you eventually return the item, minus a $1.50 restocking fee.

Basically, I only rent from Blockbuster when I think I might want to keep an item way after the return date, so the $1.50 is a bargain. Only problem is that it looks like a lot of people are doing the same thing; Blockbuster is far more likely to be out of stock on recent releases since they instituted this policy

From Blockbuster FAQ page..

[E IS mC(Square)]

From Blockbuster FAQ page

Question:
What do you mean by "the end of late fees?"
Answer:
For any reason, if you are unable to return the movies or games by their due date, you won't be charged additional fees for keeping them an extra day or two.


Says a lot about the clarity of the ad campaign!

This suck big time.

Re:From Blockbuster FAQ page..

[JadeNB]

That quote from the FAQ, while certainly misleading, is not incorrect. You don't get charged for being literally a day or two late -- it's only after a week that you `buy' it.

However much I hate to defend Blockbuster, one has to admit that `No late fees if you're a little late' is a more reasonable policy (from the point of view of customers who want movies on the shelves!) than `No late fees ever ever ever'. While the distinction should have been made clear in promotions, I actually like the way it's really set up better.

Spin!

[OldManAndTheC]

You have to admire the chutzpah of their PR guys. From today's press release:

Blockbuster Enhances Communications Regarding Popular No Late Fees Program; Program Is Favored By Customers for Flexibility, Convenience and Value

I doubt they're too worried about the $630,000 settlement. This is a company that took in almost $6 Billion in the last twelve months. As an AP story puts it:

...numbers of monthly subscribers and rental transactions increased for the first time in two years after the launch of the "No Late Fees" advertising campaign. He said the company is on schedule to have 2 million subscribers by spring 2006.

So even after putting out nearly a million bucks to pay off the states and put up new signs, they will still make money. Just consider it a cost of doing business.

What are the Refunds?

[DavidD_CA]

Blockbuster will be refunding customers as part of the deal

So does that mean that customers who "bought" a DVD (because they didn't return it in 7 days) and therefore were charged full retail price, are now getting complete refunds?

I am employed by a BB Franchisee WITH late fees

[SonicSpike]

BB used to charge the full rental price even if the rental was a few hours late. This pissed a lot of people off of they had to pay another $4.38 for being 3 hours late.

My franchise (Southern Stores, INC) came out with a per/day late fee. For a 5 day rental - they are all 5 days now at my store - then it is $.90/day late fee charged to the account. This is the entire late fee divided up into 5 days. People complain a LOT less about a $.90 late fee than a $4.50 late fee. We also changed our due date to midnight instead of noon on the second day.

We started this program and tested it beginning in January 2004 with a few stores and eventually all of our stores adopted it (the franchise covers Tennessee). Our customers were much more happy than previously.

Then BB Corporate, all of the national stores, came out with this "no-late fees program" and began to advertise it via national advertising outlets. Well, people in Tennessee watch network and satellite programming and thus saw these advertisements. You want to see confusion in the market place?

Our franchise decided to NOT participate in the corporate program because we think our customers like the current program not to mention it is much simpler. Almost every day people will walk into my store and when I tell them they have late fees they immediately start to mention that BB has no more late fees. Then I have to be the bad guy and sit there and explain to them that we are a franchise store and don't participate in that corporate program; yeah - it really tends to upset some of the customers. If they still complain then I hand them a memo from our franchise office which explains all of this in writing and even offer to give them the number. I remember a few months ago I saw a posting on the Net that mentioned an exec from the franchise slamming the corporate policy in the memo we hand out and that his remarks could potentially be used in court against the national corporation. I cannot find that article now however. I've been told that only 5% of all BB stores are not participating.

Also something worth noting is that we seem to be getting less and less copies of titles in on their respective release dates. For example if we would normally get 50 copies of this week's new relases last year, we might only be getting 30 or so. From what I can tell it is deliberate and accomplishes several things:
1) Less inventory to purchase
2) More likely to be 100% out of stock for a longer period of time
3) Keeps the customer coming back to the store more often because their chances of getting a new title the first week are slimmer and slimmer
4) Creates more space in the store for sell-thru items
5) We are told to suggest to customers that they purchase the movie from our shelves instead of rent it.

Compare our prices to Wal-Marts!!! WOW we are sometimes as much as $10 higher than Wal-Mart! I think that their model is to have less and less to rent and then try and get the customer to keep coming back so that they spend more often, or that they actually purchase it where there is a greater profit margin (or at least it gets the customer in the mindset of purchaseing, not just renting, from Blockbuster)

Here is an article from our local paper in Nashville which mentiones these issues:
http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/ 05/01/638 70251.shtml

I apologize for the poor grammer, spelling, and incoherence but I've spent the better part of 40 something in the studio working on a project for school.

The opinions and thoughts of this posting are in no way official commentary of Blockbuster or Southern Stores, INC no do they reflect or represent either entities. Any official comments or news releases will come from proper and official channels. (besides, I graduate from college in a month and will be quitting then)

Re:I am employed by a BB Franchisee WITH late fees

[Anonymous Coward]

Y'know, I once worked for Southern Stores, Inc. You're probably somewhere near Nashville. This means you have to work under the bitch-troll from hell DM there. Here's a tip for you: fuck that joint. Go work for Hollywood, you get treated like a person and don't get yelled at by 10 customers at night. Oh, and they pay more too. As in you get an actual raise every once and a while.

Yes, I'm bitter. Why do you ask?

Re:I am employed by a BB Franchisee WITH late fees

[ramblin billy]

You seem to be suggesting that, in your experience as an employee, Blockbuster is purposely misleading their customers concerning the availability of titles and the reasons behind many of their policies. They are advertising benefits to the customer that they purposely minimize in attempt to surreptitiously affect buying behaviors. They exhibit contempt for their customers and are obviously motivated by profits to such a large extent that ethics are inconsequential factors in their behavior. So...

Why do you work for them?

I understand you are a student and will soon be quitting. In no way do I want to single you out. It's just that in my opinion this situation illustrates one of the reasons that businesses consistently succeed in taking advantage of the public. "I was just doing my job" is the modern equivalent to "I was just following orders". People will do things on the 'job' they would never consider in their private lives. They will lie. They will repeat company statements that they know are misleading. They will use sales techniques that they know are designed to be manipulative and deceptive. They will knowingly participate in over billing, 'lost paperwork', and outright fraudulent record keeping. They will code spyware. They will screw the customer because their employer says it's their job. They will tarnish their honor, delude themselves with rationalizations, and ultimately damage their self worth. And when it bothers them they will allow the bastards running the show to convince them that they are the ones with the problem.

Yes, yes, I know it's not that simple. People have to eat and take care of their families. There are bills to be paid and fortunes to be made - and after all - this is business - nothing personal. Bullshit. The contempt shown by business is a completely personal thing. It is the same attitude that allows for closing profitable factories to make a few more cents per item, for downgrading full time employees to part time status to avoid paying for benefits, and for manipulating the legal and political systems to avoid accepting responsibility for their actions. At its heart it is the same attitude that accepts conquest, slavery, and oppression as viable methods for achieving goals.

Activists say that people must vote with their wallets - do not patronize companies that exhibit bad faith. That's not enough. We have got to stop helping the bastards screw us. We have got to take personal responsibility for the way we treat each other. We have to break out of our programming that places money and possessions above honor and integrity. We've got to tell the bastards that we've had enough of their shit and we're not going to compromise ourselves any longer.

billy - mad as hell and not going to take it anymore

Re:I am employed by a BB Franchisee WITH late fees

[artefactual]

My local Blockbuster [Sydney Australia] has late fees that seem to me to be entirely fair. They are charged on a pro-rata basis, if you take out a 7 day item and return it a day late you pay 1/7th of the hire fee. If you pay this on the spot when you return it, rather than when you next hire, this fee is halved. having said this I suspect [but don't know for sure] that Australia has more franchises and less corporate stores.

Re:I am employed by a BB Franchisee WITH late fees

[SonicSpike]

Ha ha ha... Ive only had one run in with her and it was positve however I have heard horror stories from my co-workers.

What is interesting is that almost every week our store has a different configuration...They say she mandates it... weird.

Re:I am employed by a BB Franchisee WITH late fees

[SonicSpike]

Actually in my position I don't do anything unethical or somehow morally negative to anyone, my fellow employees or my customers (I am not management).

If I was told to do anything unethical or anything that violated my core beliefs I wouldn't be working there. I do my best to help the customers (except those that are jackasses) and I have developed a relationship with many of them.

They have an evolving business model which is trying to increse frequency of visits and ultimately increase sell-thru which will increase profits. This does tend to piss people off when they try for 4 weeks to get a specific title but we dont have any in stock that far out from the release date.

I would say that if anyone is acting unethical it is upper management/marketing. Best Buy will pull the same sort of thing - run a killer deal on a piece of gear but only have like 2 units per store and then try to upsell the customers once the yget in the door. It is all about foot traffic and market share and some of these retailers are brutal in this regard.

However your ramblings are that of a typical uninformed, uneducated, emotional liberal who has next to no understanding of market forces and economics. Here is something to remember: the market ALWAYS attempts to equalize!

For example: many companies are outsourcing white-collar jobs to India. They are laying off hundreds of thousands while paying a wage a fraction of what they would in America to the Indians. Well... in the long term they are going to realize that the buying power of the average American is going to decrease due to the unemployment and thus less and less people will be able to purchase their products. This means the biz could go out of biz and wouldn't be selling anything to anyone; thus the market has equalized itself.

One reason for the trend of moving jobs overseas is government bloat, excessive regulation, and extreme taxation which all result in a higher cost of doing business. So the root of the problem is big government. Here is another thing to remember: big biz likes big gov!

Working for a corporation is miserable and I personally don't know why ANYONE would do it (other than for temp positions such as college, income supplement etc). Being in business for yourself is the only way to go as far as I am concerned. The problem with small biz is of course again excessive gov regulation which really makes it hard to survive.

Anyway, if you want a more educated view of things I would suggest you read some of these papers:
http://cato.org/research/
http://www.cato.org/briefingpapers/
http://www.cato.org/policyanalysis/

For more info on BB check out this site:
http://ihateblockbuster.com/

Re:I am employed by a BB Franchisee WITH late fees

[ramblin billy]

Yeah, the guys who refilled the gas reservoirs in the ovens at Auschwitz weren't management either! Just kidding - mostly. I know that some difference exists between employees who actually perform sleazy deeds and others who just sit back and watch them go. It's usually reflected at bonus time. I'm sure you've never put up any signs or handed out any pamphlets that contained any untrue or misleading information. I have no trouble believing you have established relationships with your customers and have been of service to many of them. You are obviously intelligent and articulate. In fact, Blockbuster is getting a hell of a deal, you have the talent to make much more than they're paying. Of course you're just there for a short time while going to school, then you'll leave. Within a week they'll replace you with someone else in the same situation. And just like you they will be an outstanding spokesman for Blockbuster just by standing behind the counter and being themselves. No you're not part of the "un ethical" management or marketing teams. You're the minimum wage lackey they hire to do their day to day dirty work. Get a clue - standing there wearing the name tag makes a statement of your support for the company all by itself. Your explanation of the motive behind their actions and your assertion that Best Buy is also guilty illustrate the point I was trying to make in my original post. You seem to excuse the un ethical practices by saying they have rational business motives and that other businesses use the same methods. Do you think that 'the market' will eliminate this condition eventually because people will refuse to patronize the offenders? Would you? Is it ethical to work for such a company? It's not my place to judge - just don't fool yourself. Waking up one fine day and realizing you've become one of the bad guys is a real bitch, especially when you've swallowed their fairy tale and you're up to your eyebrows in debt.

As for your personal assessment...you got one out of three. It won't be long until you leave the sheltered, insular environment of theories and men who make their living talking about what other men do. You will soon recognize that several uncomfortable things are true. 'Economics' is more a religion than a science. "Market equalization" is a poor match against "market manipulation". Un ethical business men have an advantage - because business ethics is often reduced to "will doing it make us more money than we will lose if we get caught?" (and they still screw up that equation all the time.) You may even discover that Accounting is the root of all evil. I received a traditional education (OK it was at a state school) 25 years ago. I've worked for, managed, and owned businesses - large and small in several industries. I've played golf with, got drunk with, and made lots of money off the owners of businesses - some of them good guys, most of them pricks. I've been exclusively independent for over ten years - and sometimes get paid to tell corporations the same kinds of things I'm saying here. I don't know what your definition of 'liberal' is - I'm not sure anyone does these days - but take your pick - I'll lay odds it's not me. As for being "emotional?" Assholes are trying to get rich by lying, cheating, and stealing. And sometimes they try to do it to the people I love and sometimes they try to do it to ME. I think being emotional about that is an entirely appropriate response. Why don't you?

billy - who thought CATO was The Green Hornets sidekick

I'll apologize in advance for this, but

[Anonymous Coward]

You know all the tricks to the gay porn aqcuisition, don't you?

Re:Hidden charges and BOA

[StormyWeather]

I have been a Bank of America customer for a very long time. I love the customer service there, and I love being able to bank in almost any city I travel to, but I don't even open the mail anymore from them because it's always some scam they are trying to get people to respond to thinking it's something they have to do when it's really just some extra service that offers little, and costs a lot.

Re:if that tells you anyything

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhhh... It tells us that you've never used your blockbuster card? That's really sad. :(

I realize it probably has sentimental value and you got it from your parents when you turned 17, but you do know that those things have expiration dates, and they get brittle with age, right?

When you finally find the right one, make sure you rent carefully.

I want my refund

[yodaj007]

Blockbuster will be refunding customers as part of the deal.

When will I get my customers back, huh? I paid blockbuster using other people, but I still have rights! I want my refund!

They still mislead even in their updated terms

[tadauphoenix]

Example:

here

From the page, and I'll put interesting stuff in bold:
Question
What is the agreement that Blockbuster has recently made to enhance the End of Late Fees program?

Answer
Blockbuster has worked with a negotiating group representing several states to further clarify and enhance the End of Late Fees program. We were asked to provide more information about the program and how it works, and although we believe our original communications were clear, we're happy to do whatever we can to improve our communications to further enhance our customer experience.

BS. That's just one example. I'd like to say that I rent from Hollywood Video, get fair prices, no marketing gimmick BS, 5 day rental, etc, never a problem. Screw the marketing antics of blockbuster.

Regardless

[AtariAmarok]

Regardless, it turns out that Blockbuster still has a late fee if you return it late(and do not want to buy it), even now as they say "no late fees". It is $1, and they call it a restocking fee.

If they only charge the restocking fee if you return it late, gee, isn't that a late fee?

It must be a regional thing...

[jbarr]

...because shortly after the ad campaign started, our local Blockbuster in Anderson, SC distributed flyers to every customer (almost to the point of being annoying) and offered to explain the new policy in detail. The policy is really not rocket science, and it does make some sense. You pay for a rental, and you have a due date. If you miss it, you are not charged any fees, but you have a week to get the rental back. If you miss that deadline, you are charged for the full cost of the item less rental fees. Pretty simple. There is a bit more "fine print" but basically, that's it.

How many chances do people need before they have can be held accountable for their actions? It's just too bad that people won't take on personal responsibility for their actions....

Re:It must be a regional thing...

[doppleganger871]

"How many chances do people need before they have can be held accountable for their actions?"

That depends on how many times you can run the case thru appeals courts.

About the insufficient disclosure

[lorcha]

There were a few disclosure problems:

1. They advertised "No late fees", but did not sufficiently disclose their "restocking fees".
2. They advertised on national TV this "no late fees" scheme, yet not all Blockbuster franchise stores participated, leading to customer confusion.
3. Some Blockbuster franchises, who were not participating in the "no late fees" scheme, still used the "no late fees" marketing materials (banners, etc) despite not participating in the "no late fees" program!

Now, I know that you are really smart and all, but wouldn't you, upon entering a blockbuster store displaying the "no late fees" banner, have reasonable cause to believe that that store was participating in the "no late fees" program? Well, some stores that weren't participating still proudly displayed the "no late fees" banner. Don't you think that's just a bit deceptive and confusing?

The problem isn't just that the American poublic was having trouble grasping the new program. The problem was the Blockbuster really was being deceptive.

Re:And this is important because...

[dascandy]

I must agree with you. There are around 5700000000 people who could not care at all about what some US company is doing with its fees. For slashdot this might just be a 60-70% of the visitors. People at slashdot, post news from all over the world or don't post it from your local space either. Don't be such hypocrits.

Re:Blockbuster - Credit card != Debit card

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to be a kill-joy, but good for them.

A debit card is not the same as a credit card as there is no assurance of payment. The merchant is guarenteed to get paid by VISA if they follow the acceptance rules regardless of your ability to pay VISA... The same isn't true for a debit card.

<soapbox
Personally, I don't understand the attraction of Debit cards. Why write a check, when you can float your payment through VISA and then only have a single payment transaction from your checking account when you pay the credit bill? A credit card protects both you and the merchant better than a debit card.
</soapbox

Re:And this is important because...Reply to Insult

[Nom du Keyboard]

I think you missed his sarcasm.

If you miss it, it's not sarcasm.

That's why we have <SCARCASM>...</SARCASM> tags.

DVD vending machine

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't directly related to the Blockbuster suit, but...

A couple weeks ago my girlfriend and I discovered a DVD vending machine in a grocery store down the street. You put in your credit card and use its computer system to select a DVD, which it then spits out at you. You take the DVD and return it when you're done. You are charged $1 per day you keep it. If you keep it over 14 days, the machine charges you like $25 and then you own the DVD.

It's really a great deal. We have already rented 5 or 6 movies from the machine - we always return the next day, so we are only charged $1. The selection of movies is OK, considering they are all stuffed in this machine. For the foreseeable future we see no need to go to the Blockbuster video literally next door to this grocery store.