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

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: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.

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: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: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: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: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: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: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.