Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

I doubt UA would follow through considering it is illegal to submit known false debts.

Plus they're outright wrong that it constitutes "fraud," if for no other reason than the person skipping additional legs didn't profit from it, instead they simply limited UA's ability to further profit off of their travel.

If this was "fraud" then any other airline discount or saving would be too. Shop around for the cheapest price? That's "fraud" since UA didn't make as much. Didn't check bags for $50+ and instead overload your carry on? That's "fraud" since UA lost the checked bag fee. Fly to a smaller airport instead of a larger one, then take the bus? That's "fraud" too, UA deserves that money.

UA's creative use of the law here is nothing more than an intimidation tactic. They've run out of ideas so instead are just trying to muddy the waters enough to stop this becoming overly popular. I guess that's easier than re-examining how you ticket/what your business model is.

View on HN

Attorney here! (Not providing legal advice, though.)

The elements of common law civil fraud are as follows:

1. Somebody intentionally misrepresents a material fact in order to obtain action or forbearance by another person ("I am traveling to ILM from SFO" but in fact is going to IAD);

2. The other person relies upon the misrepresentation (United prices the fare as though the passenger were going to ILM instead of IAD); and

3. The other person suffers injury as a result of the act or forbearance taken in reliance upon the misrepresentation (United gets less fare).

Note that profit is not an element of fraud, although here, one could argue that the potential fraudster did profit in terms of the difference in fare.

So United has a fair argument that, given the facts at hand, intentionally misrepresenting one's travel plans in order to obtain a better fare probably constitutes fraud.

If I order a meal at McDonald's and don't eat the fries, is that fraud, because the cost of a burger plus soda separately maybe more than the meal with a burger, soda and the fries?

Technically yes, but the injury is de minimis so McDonald's isn't likely to demand recompense in this situation.

What if I habitually don't like fries? Say I have done it 2000 times?

What is the point of this debate? Only the fictional McDonald's in your fictional scenario knows. It's an unlikely situation to begin with, so let's stick to the facts at hand.

We bought a Juniper router on sale for $120,000 and did not use some of its functionality. A base model without this functionality was offered at $150,000 by the same salesperson. I can get the quotes and the invoice. Can Juniper force us to pay the difference and report to D&B?

No, what's your point?

Can't respond due to nesting depth. But I fail to see the difference between my company buying a more expensive model for less and not using the advanced functionality, and them ditching the last leg.

We're talking about whether the actions here constitute fraud. Take your example and test your actions against the elements I posted above, and see whether a plausible case can be made. I don't think they fit, so that's why I said no.

What would the recompense be? They hold you hostage until you eat all the fucking fries they paid you to eat?

The difference in price.

So, "No, you can't have that to go: we're gonna watch you either eat the fries you were paid $0.25 to eat, or else ask you to return the $0.25."

No, because you did not make, and McDonald's did not rely on, any representation of your intent to eat the fries.

What representation did that person make of his intent to fly to the final destination?

I'm not agreeing with the upthread poster’s characterization of that transaction, either (for similar reasons); see my response to their post further upthread.

Technically yes? Here's why techincally I law system fucking sucks and favors large corporations, because how in the world would the small guy be expected to find against someone suing us for this?

Not at all, eating is not part of the contract, only receipt. If you buy a meal at McDonald's and throw all of it in the trash, that's not fraud. It's yours to do with how you please.

What if I repeatedly buy non-stop tickets and don't show up? I have done it a lot. According to you, I breached my promise to fly to the final destination?

The question is, would United sell you a ticket knowing you have no actual intent to fly? If they answer is yes, there’s no problem. If the answer is no, then there’s a problem.

Where have I said that?

Correcting myself here: this particular example isn’t fraudulent. You asked for something that was being offered, you paid the asking price, and you got it. They’d sell it to you whether you intend to eat the fries or not. They don’t care. So there’s no misrepresentation and no reliance. Those elements aren’t met, so no fraud occurs.

Services can be different than goods in this regard. In the airline example, the seller prices flights differently for different destinations. When you indicate an intent to fly to city B by requesting a ticket with that destination, and the airline offers you a ticket whose destination is the one you asked for, their offer is made in reliance on your stated intent. So if you intentionally abandon your trip sooner, you reveal your true intent: to fly to city C. And if the price for flying to city C was higher, then you deprived the seller of a benefit they’d otherwise have had because they wouldn’t have sold you the ticket for the same price had you revealed your true intent at the start of the transaction.

I am sorry but I am seeing an exact analogy, other than your statement that services are somehow different from purchases. I am also depriving McDonald's from the added profit of selling me a coke and a burger separately for more than a meal, and I do have the premeditated true intent of not eating the fries, that I reveal by tossing them repeatedly every time I order a meal. Maybe it's harder to prove that I toss the fries every time, but according to your logic McDonald's in theory can collect the difference and threaten my credit too.

In this hypothetical, McDonald’s does not care what you do with the fries they sold you. Even if you told them that you were just going to throw them in the garbage, they’d still sell you the combo at the cheaper price.

United, however, does care how you use the ticket they issue. How can you tell? Because they would not have sold you the ticket at the discounted price had you told them your true intent (to fly to a city other than your ticketed destination). They offered you a particular fare because they relied on what you claimed. That’s the difference.

The key to analyzing these questions is, what would the other person have done had they known your true intent? If they’d have done something different, then reliance can be shown and that element can be satisfied.

Again, nested depth limit but: I could have told the cashier "I only want a coke and a burger please" revealing my true intent. In that case, the cashier would have sold me what I wanted, for more money. Since I concealed my true intent from the cashier and said "I want a combo meal please" I deprived McDonalds of this profit.

Now if you tell me that I violated some written United contract, that I had to explicitly agree to when purchasing a multi-leg ticket, that's another matter. But I will still argue that that contract is not enforceable. And to my knowledge, they do not have a clearly visible contract with an opt in in this specific case.

My point is that the burden is on the airline to prevent such loopholes by revisiting their pricing schemes, rather than attempting to bully its passengers (also for Streisand effect reasons).

I’m sorry to say that you’d lose.

Law school is expensive, but I’d recommend attending if you’d like to better understand beyond what I’ve already said here.

Your argument fails hard at point #1. A ticket buyer, through merely the act of purchasing a ticket, isn't making a material representation.

You should have argued contract law. That's perhaps a winning argument. Civil Fraud isn't because you'd have to argue that the simple act of clicking a "buy" button on a web-site is akin to a representation, and by extension a misrepresenting, an argument which you'd never win.

The fact your example ("I am traveling to ILM from SFO") literally never would be spoken or written, just inferred, should have been a clue. You've constructed that example-misrepresentation from nothing more than making a purchase, it doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny.

> Civil Fraud isn't because you'd have to argue that the simple act of clicking a "buy" button on a web-site is akin to misrepresenting, which you'll never win.

Are you an attorney?

Putting an origin and a destination in a form and asking for the price is a clear representation of intent, not to mention buying said ticket. Intent need not be verbally communicated; any conduct that is recognized as a representation is sufficient. This is basic civil law; your strict definition is hogwash.

It absolutely holds up, in the same way that clicking an "I agree" button in an online transaction is a representation of agreement, which courts have already held to be valid. See, e.g., the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), and Feldman v. Google, E.D. Penn, Civ. 06-2540 (2007).

> Putting an origin and a destination in a form and asking for the price is a clear representation of intent, not to mention buying said ticket.

It's a clear representation of intent to purchase the ticket.

Whether it is a representation of intent to use every leg of travel included as part of that ticket is...at best, a point on which you have provided no supporting evidence, reasoning, or case law.

I think its pretty obvious that in the general case purchase of a composite (or bulk) good or service is not a representation of intent to use all the components, do if you think there is something special about either multileg airline tickets in general or United’s tickets in particular that warrants different treatment, please, feel free to enlighten us.

> It absolutely holds up, in the same way that clicking an "I agree" button in an online transaction is a representation of agreement, which courts have already held to be valid

No, it doesn't, and the cases are readily distinguished, because the representation you wish to infer is (unlike the “I agree” case for contract formation) of a different intent than what is expressly stated by the UI element being interacted with. We aren't arguing over whether a “buy” button indicates intent to buy tickets, but whether it is a representation of intent to use every leg of travel covered by the purchased tickets. Even if the contract of carriage has language to that effect, which might give you a breach of contract claim, I don't think you’ll find much support for the use of language in a contract of adhesion as a representation by the non-drafting party for fraud claim.

> Whether it is a representation of intent to use every leg of travel included as part of that ticket is...at best, a point on which you have provided no supporting evidence, reasoning, or case law.

You're trying to find a loophole that, as a former Federal court intern, I find extremely unlikely to persuade any reasonable judge. When you declare your destination to be ILM in the search field, one can reasonably infer that your intent is, in fact, to travel to ILM. I concede that there's no case law yet on this subject, but I would be surprised if it made it out of the "laughed out of court" stage if you argued otherwise.

> You're trying to find a loophole

No, I'm not.

I'm trying to find an actual false representation, and seeing only a false inference of intent to use every leg of travel from a representation of intent to purchase a ticket; testing this as fraud is something which you seem to admit would see every purchase of an aggregate good or service (the example you specifically addressed elsewhere in the thread being fast food value meals) priced below the price of some proper subset of their components as actionably fraudulent (if not always worth the effort) if the intent was not to use every purchased component but only to save money compared to individually purchasing the components.

I'm going to say this one last time.

The false representation is "I intend to fly to city B." That's it. Nothing else. It's not "I intend to use all components of a series of segments that would get me to city B" as you suggest.

You're making the analysis more complicated than it is, and that's why you would fail to persuade a court.

The representation is "I would like to purchase an option to travel towards this destination."

Courts apply a “reasonable person” standard when inferring intent from an action. It’s unlikely they’re going to interpret a ticket purchase as an option purchase, particularly since United doesn’t describe their flights as “options” anywhere in their business AFAICT.

> Intent need not be verbally communicated; any conduct that is recognized as a representation is sufficient.

Indeed. You're arguing that the mere act of buying is and of itself a representation, which is erroneous. The whole rest of your arguments fall apart because that one core detail is wrong.

> It absolutely holds up, in the same way that clicking an "I agree" button in an online transaction is a representation of agreement

Clicking "I agree" binds both parties to a contract, but we are talking elements of civil fraud not contract law. You were arguing that consumers were committing civil fraud by pressing a buy button due to some supposed representations you're insisting they're making. Let's stay on topic here.

> Indeed. You're arguing that the mere act of buying is and of itself a representation, which is erroneous.

It's not the purchase that is the representation. It is the communication that you want to fly to a particular city by placing it in the destination field or by telling it to the ticket agent.

I'm tired of arguing this to amateurs; take it to a judge and try it yourself. I'll bring the popcorn.

> It is the communication that you want to fly to a particular city by placing it in the destination field or by telling it to the ticket agent.

By that logic even searching for tickets without purchasing them could be argued as "fraud." Since even putting something in the destination field is, according to your argument, a material representation of intent. None of this holds up.

> I'm tired of arguing this to amateurs

Please review the Hacker News Guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> By that logic even searching for tickets without purchasing them could be argued as "fraud." Since even putting something in the destination field is, according to your argument, a material representation of intent.

If you search for tickets with no intent to purchase, it's plausibly an element of fraud, but it's not fraud. The additional elements (reliance and detriment) aren't met yet. Once the purchase is complete and the rest of the events occur (i.e. intentionally abandoning travel), then all the remaining elements are fulfilled and a plausible fraud claim can commence.

Out of curiosity, how do you see the element of detriment being argued? The passenger paid for a seat. The airline will absolutely assign that seat to a standby passenger when they miss boarding. Even if they don't, the seat is paid and less passengers means less feel burn. In both cases the airline makes out better. Is the argument going to be that the airline would have charged you more had you told them you only needed the first leg and by extension you robbed them of a chance to squeeze you harder?

> I'm tired of arguing this to amateurs; take it to a judge and try it yourself. I'll bring the popcorn.

I've upvoted your comments in this thread because they're interesting, but you don't seem to be providing many references yourself so I'm not so sure why you are demanding references of others. (You did reference the "I agree" button below, but I don't see how that implies fraud in this case.)

The question of fraud aside, my main question is what the actual financial harm is to United. It's not like they can say here's the price you would have gotten by going A -> B -> C and here's the price for A -> B, therefore you owe us the difference because there is no single price to refer to in the first place. All the different prices vary across the board at different times for different people for the same service. Also is there any real harm? Is taking the A -> B -> C route and hopping off at B causing them a financial loss?

The main point of contention here is what representation is being made when a customer tells United what origin and destination airport they want a ticket for, and whether the customer is intentionally misrepresenting their true intent by specifying a different destination airport than the one they actually intend to fly to. The fact that there’s even an argument here that no misrepresentation is being made, in light of my legal training and experience, I find pretty ludicrous.

It’s well known in contract law that the terms of a contract are determined objectively, as a hypothetical reasonable person would interpret them, not subjectively. Courts are understandably loath to try to divine the actual intent of the parties. See, e.g., Winograd v. Am. Broad. Co., 68 Cal. App. 4th 624, 632 (1998)).

I’m sure United can figure out what the price difference would have been under the particular circumstances of the case. If not, a court will make a determination of damages based on the facts provided by the parties.

Purchasing a good or service with multiple components is not, in and of itself, a representation to the seller of intent to use all the components.

Now, there could be something United has inserted in the purchase flow of all multileg tickets which assures that the purchaser makes a representation of intent to use every leg, though I've never seen anything like that when purchasing tickets (and a contract of adhesion that United writes that most purchasers will not read, while it may succeed as a contract, probably won't be seen as such a representation for fraud purposes, AFAICT.)

> Purchasing a good or service with multiple components is not, in and of itself, a representation to the seller of intent to use all the components.

Do you have a legal citation for this? I'm unaware of any law that supports this assertion.

In any event, the representation in question is "I want to fly from city A to city B." It's pretty reasonable for an airline to conclude that when a passenger makes this request, that is in fact their intent, not to fly to city C.

> Do you have a legal citation for this?

As far as I am aware, no one has actually attempted to make a fraud claim on the grounds that mere purchase (and/or the statement of intent to purchase) a composite good or service was a representation by the buyer to the seller of intent to use every portion of the good or service so sold and had the case survive to a published decision on that question.

But, you know, if you can find a case supporting your claim that this intent would clearly be inferred from such an aggregate purchase, I'd love to hear it.

To purchase the ticket you agree to the contract of carriage, which explicitly disallows hidden-city ticketing in section 6, subsection J, paragraph 1. See here: https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.ht...

So when you agree to use the ticket to travel all the way to the final destination, I think that qualifies as a "representation... of intent to use every portion of the good".

I addressed that (assuming that the contract likely covered this) in my first post in this thread: “Even if the contract of carriage has language to that effect, which might give you a breach of contract claim, I don't think you’ll find much support for the use of language in a contract of adhesion as a representation by the non-drafting party for fraud claim.”

Damn. If this becomes legal precedent will I be forced to read every page of books I buy?

And you'd damn well use both items of your Buy One, Get One Free offer. No sharing. No only using half of the second item.

> Do you have a legal citation for this? I'm unaware of any law that supports this assertion.

One could argue the same about every post you've made on this topic thus far. You're arguing that simply the act of buying something is a representation, which can then result in misrespections ala fraud, but you've provided no legal citations and the one citation you have provided was about contractual agreements which aren't in scope here.

The reason I'm not citing anything is because there's nothing to cite. The (mis)representation in this case is crystal clear: "I want to fly to city B."

I completely disagree it's crystal clear.

How does buying something indicate your intent, wants, or wishes? If I buy a can of spray-paint, the store has no idea if I am using it to paint my child's bicycle, tag graffiti, use it as a weapon and hit someone on the head, or as part of a wonderful "Rube Goldberg" device which at the end an implement hits the sprayhead which sprays through a bright white light as part of performance art.

Another example, a true story: yesterday I visited an ice cream store with my friend. She wanted a scoop with chocolate sauce, and I wanted just a scoop. 1 scoop was 4.29+tax. A 3 scoop sundae with chocolate, nuts, and strawberry-sauce was 7.98+tax. Even though we only wanted 2 scoops we got the sundae because it was cheaper and scooped the strawberry-sauce off and into the trash (crazy I know, we don't like it). Did we defraud the ice cream store?

People buy "more than they need" all the time, and purchasing a good provides no intent as to what one wants or how they wish to use it.

Facts and circumstances matter; not every case is comparable. In the specific case of buying airplane tickets, it’s reasonable for a carrier to infer intent to travel to a particular destination from the user’s input.

>How does buying something indicate your intent, wants, or wishes?

Because when you buy a united ticket you agree to a contract of carriage that specifically says you will use the ticket in its entirety.

Note that this contract is not a law: i would be surprised if it stood in court. According to it, if I feel sick and terminate my flight at the stopover, of if I learn of a business emergency and I have to go back, I am still in breach of this ridiculous contract?

And what makes it most ridiculous is this: "Any practice that United believes, in its sole discretion, is exploitative, abusive or that manipulates/bypasses/overrides United’s fare and ticket rules."

Can they ban me from United- yes. Can they try to collect money and threaten me with a credit dent? They can, until they ran into a lawyer or into a motivated person with time and resources on their hands.

Impossibility is a defense to a breach of contract. And let’s not be silly; United’s not going to go after you for unintentional breach due to illness. Come on, use some common sense.

Are you arguing that buying a return ticket even though you need a (much more expensive) one way ticket and then not using the return segment is fraud?

Apart from proving that you intentionally bought a return flight best of luck defining this as fraud in front of a judge.

Yes, that is fraud too, and is strictly prohibited by the Contract of Carriage.

True story :

I booked two flights to Paris for my girlfriend and me. Before we left she found out that she has to return a day ealier. Instead of rebooking the flight (which would have been insanely expensive) she chose to return by train.

Arriving at the airport for the return segment I proceeded to the gate and informed the airline employee that my girlfriend will not make the flight and that I would like to check her out.

Instead of busting me and denying boarding (which would be the logical conclusion of your asessment) she thanked me profusely and I went on my merry ways (waiting for and eventually boarding the flight).

Now, you can certainly argue that we didn't know about her earlier return when booking the ticket. But we sure knew about it when boarding for the first segment. Nevertheless and despite the tickets running under the same record locator I did not have any problems boarding the return flight nor was I approached by the airline later.

Of course it could be that European airlines are generally not as hard nosed as United (they generally also don't rough up their passengers, but I digress). But I think it's more to the point that it's impossible to prove that I never intended to take the return flight. It certainly would be more obvious for hidden city / nested bookings strategies that I intended to save money (I would be very reluctant to call that fraud).

Moreover, fraud is a criminal concept. Violating the contract of carriage is certainly not.

Fraud is not always criminal - you can be liable civilly as well.

Contracts have to be argued in court, but you're going to have a tough time arguing that case on a contract whose terms you intended to breach even as you agreed to them.

That's why there's a decent case for a breach of contract claim (subject to all the concerns that usually apply with contracts of adhesion.)

But the language of a contract of adhesion doesn't seem likely to be taken as a representation by the non-drafting party in a fraud case.

I don't want to fly anywhere. I want to buy a plane ticket with my name on it good for travel to B if I decide I want to do that later.

The law doesn’t care about your subjective intent; it will be interpreted objectively, according to the facts and circumstances that can be observed externally of the interaction between you and the carrier. This is a basic tenet of contract law.

The representation in question is "I want to buy a ticket that allows me to fly from City A to City B, stopping in City C."

The declaration of intent is made before the stopover city is revealed to the prospective buyer. You don’t get to specify a stopover city when you select your origin and destination; only after those are entered is the routing revealed to the customer.

I hope you can take a step back and see the absurdity of your argument. Using a search engine in one particular way doesn’t imply intent, nor does buying something that’s not exactly what you need.

Airlines can’t have it both ways: if they wanted to, they could make customers pony up a “trajectory abandonment” deposit, or force customers through an interstitial in which they explicitly agree to extra charges, or something similar, but they want the financial/competitive advantage that comes with the customer not having any worries (i.e. being clueless) about being charged for missing or not taking a connection.

We’re talking about a situation in which the customer already knows they want to go to city B. If they’re being truthful up front, city B is the destination they’ll be putting in the destination box when searching for tickets, and they will get a routing to that destination without any additional segments when they do so (assuming, of course, that the route is possible).

Your argument seems absurd to me. The price break exists because it's a good deal for airline and long distance flier. Abusing this system only ends in two ways: airlines punish short-stoppers, or raise prices on everyone.

How about selling a ticket and then telling me I can't get on the flight because it's overbooked. Is that fraud too?

Get em, max

Attorney here! (Not providing legal advice, though.)

No, because overbooking is disclosed in the Contract of Carriage. See https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.ht..., section 5G.

This is insane on a whole other level, because United profits when you don't get on that 2nd leg.

If they're overbooked, they avoid having to pay to bump someone.

They incur less in fuel costs, as the plane lands in its destination city with a slightly greater fuel load.

Some passenger somewhere has a more pleasant flight because they have an empty seat next to them.

> This is insane on a whole other level, because United profits when you don't get on that 2nd leg.

Not necessarily. If you use use hidden-city ticketing, they lost out on extracting the extra money they wanted to charge you for going to your intended destination AND the extra money they may have been able to charge someone else for the leg you didn't take.

That said, I think it's the airline's fault for using an over-complicated pricing model with odd behaviors that customers can take advantage of like this. There'd be no issue if they just charged the same per leg regardless of your final destination. That'd make everything transparent and totally remove the need for hidden-city ticketing.

It depends how you look at it. Once you've booked your ticket, United is better off if you don't take the last leg of the flight than if you do. Prior to booking, they would of course prefer you book the more expensive ticket. Forcing you to take the last leg is about encouraging you to book that more expensive ticket; it's not because they actually lost something when you chose to skip the final leg of the journey rather than take it.

> they lost out on the extra money they may have been able to charge someone else

Not necessarily. Airlines have sophisticated yield management programs that should give them a good estimate on how many passengers are likely to skip the final leg of any particular route -- the airline can oversell the final leg by exactly the number of passengers who aren't likely to show up.

and am incorrect in thinking that if they now have an empty seat because you bailed on the leg, that they can let a standby passenger fill the seat?

I think they will just carry less fuel. Hauling around fuel - that has weight - you don’t use will just result in you burning more fuel than necessary.

Heck, jetliners actually can’t land if the tank is too full - https://youtu.be/R9oqi6HteJg

I wonder if they could structure this as a real debt, by making some legs cost negative money, e.g. on a trip from A->B->C, A->B costs $100, B->C costs -$10, for a total cost of $90. If you book A->B->C and prepay the $90, but get off at B, then you owe the airline $10 because you didn't receive the $10 credit from flying B->C

> I doubt UA would follow through considering it is illegal to submit known false debts.

I wonder if they've snuck in a mandatory binding arbitration clause into their contract, and if that would cover disputes about false debts. Even if the false debts were totally illegal, arbitration could make it impractical to challenge them.

Do you are saying one can force arbitration for an _illegal_ act? That sounds wrong on every level.

UA is specifically claiming they violated the contract of carriage, which may (IANAL!) be enough for them to prove damages.

>UA's creative use of the law

You mean "use of contract", assuming they're correct that it violates the contract of carriage (too lazy to check).

> I doubt UA would follow through considering it is illegal to submit known false debts.

Ahh yes, the "known false debts act of 1789". </s> The fact is corporations have throngs of willing stooges who are happy to perjure themselves in trial and assert that the debts weren't false at all. Who's a judge and jury going to believe? The scammer who cheated the poor impoverished airline out of its money, or the well-dressed stooge with front-row access to United's records?

Lying to the courts to get what you want is in practice a fully sanctioned strategy for corporations who desire to intimidate their customers by "making an example" of their least favorite customers by throwing criminal charges against them.

Mr. Lundgren can bear witness to this, as can I.

> Ahh yes, the "known false debts act of 1789". </s>

Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970:

> Your creditor must not supply information to a CRA that it knows (or should know) is inaccurate. That includes:

> - reporting a debt as charged off when you settled it or paid it in full

> - misstating the balance due

> - reporting late payments when you paid timely

> - listing you as a debtor on an account when you were only the authorized user, or

> - supplying credit information on an account where identity theft was previously reported (or failing to maintain a reasonable procedure for you to report identity theft).

Violations can result in civil damages[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act#Civi... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act#Furn...

If United Airlines decided to assess what they later define as the fair market price of the tickets thrown away, none of these bullet points would apply.

If you rent a car or motel room and you smoke in it, for example, they can charge you a fee. Keep your rental truck an extra day, they can charge you a fee. If you rent a Uber or Lyft and puke in it, for example, they can charge you a fee.

The FCRA is completely irrelevant to the topic here, because it's inapplicable to the above examples and United would argue they are similarly not violating it.

I wish this forum would allow people the option to disagree with an argument without censoring it. I respect (and even eagerly await) that others might disagree with my opinions, but that deserves a downvote less than an off-topic or rude post.

> The FCRA is completely irrelevant to the topic here, because it's inapplicable to the above examples and United would argue they are similarly not violating it.

Nobody said they were violating it. The topic was that they would be violating it if they submitted their fictional debts to a credit rating agency or to a collections agent. Therefore they're never going to make good on their threats, because UA knows this.

Plus you're using bad examples, since in all the examples those companies can show financial harm, and are recouping costs. In UA's case their only "harm" is that they made less profit than they would have liked.

Those "debts" uncollected are just as much real to a credit agency or a bill collector as a late truck rental or motel overstay. I'm pretty sure there's some forced arbitration language in their contract of carriage, so the recourse you're counting on in practice just isn't there.

If you keep a rental truck an extra day, it may or may not disadvantage the rental company. You might be saving them storage costs because their small lot is already full, or you may be scaring off a customer because they are out of stock of the truck size wanted on the extra day. Or it may make no difference at all.

United's point (which I disagree with in its entirety) is that reserving the seat then abandoning it deprives United of the ability to get a good price for it from a customer who instead books with say, Delta, because Delta has room enough to sell at a lower price point. Yes, that's less profit than they would've liked, but McDonald's can say the same ("less profit than we would've liked) after an armed robbery cleans out their cash registers; doesn't mean it's legal.

A slightly less inane argument is that United, finding its thrown-away flight prematurely full, will now fly a more expensive 737 instead of a CRJ to accommodate more passengers. Then, finding the plane full of no-shows, United suffers damages in the form of higher leasing, fuel, insurance, and labor costs, because of a false representation on the person(s) booking the extra ticket.

This argument only exists because airlines make private resale of tickets impossible. Fix that and both sides will have less reason to kvetch about this.

Your slightly less inane argument is a good example for why they would deny last minute refunds, because some of those expenses cannot be undone at the last minute. But if the paid passengers take the flight, their ticket costs cover all those expenses you list. By failing to take the flight and not requesting a refund, a passenger does not add to those expenses, and even reduces the fuel expense slightly. So where are the damages?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com