Hacker News Reader

Comment by lxgr | Hacker News Reader

There has got to be a way to penalize companies for attempting this kind of thing. Even just removing the charge without discussion isn't enough, as some people will be traveling on a corporate card they don't necessarily monitor closely, will confuse the charge for something else etc.

Otherwise, I'd love to be able to preemptively and without any prior communication charge (way in excess of the room rate, of course!) hotels for broken appliances, poor cleanliness etc., and put the burden of proof that everything was fine on them.

View on HN

The big problem is the power imbalance. There's a reason they start your stay by putting a hold on a credit card. And even if you could charge them, they can afford a legal battle better than you.

Oh, that's a common misunderstanding, but they can't sue me in court – by accepting me as a customer, they accepted my binding arbitration agreement! It clearly said so on my luggage tag their authorized agent (i.e. the bellboy) handled as part of check-in.

>Oh, that's a common misunderstanding, but they can't sue me in court – by accepting me as a customer, they accepted my binding arbitration agreement! It clearly said so on my luggage tag their authorized agent (i.e. the bellboy) handled as part of check-in.

Why can't there be a human membership union that sets these automatic binding arbitration agreements on service providers on behalf of members? Is there any law preventing a class of people from creating such a customer's union?

> Why can't there be a human membership union that sets these automatic binding arbitration agreements on service providers on behalf of members?

Those already exist, we call those things 'governments'.

I think we got some wires crossed somewhere, my government is helping them beat me up more ...

It takes constant vigilance to prevent that union from being captured by management.

Being captured by the management is its normal state, that's how it evolved in the first place.

That's a great analogy. Government = worker's/consumer's/people's union. Management = capitalism/corporations.

What is capitalism?

That's because another group of people made a pact with the devil, and a third group just shrugged their shoulders when everyone had a chance to nullify that pact....

Assuming you live in a democracy (we'll see if America still counts in 3 years), elect a better one.

When someone cheats and swindles you, you don't win by cheating and swindling them more. Even if you succeed, now the world is just that more swindle-y than it was the day before, and swindling has become a way of life.

The correct and only solution is for Congress to define what constitutes someone agreeing to a contract, and penalizing anyone who even raises the notion in a court of law that you have agreed to something without having performed that statutory gesture.

First, agreements can't be made unless both parties are present. If they don't bother to send a representative to you with a piece of paper, not an agreement. If they don't get your signature on the paper (or some legislatively defined equivalent), not an agreement. If they've attempted to hide or cheat or confuse, such that it's not apparent, nothing has been agreed.

This would get rid of much of the bullshit we have today with EULAs, binding arbitration horseshit, and all the other chicanery. Have Congress make it a law.

This is exactly the kind of subversive stuff I live for.

Live for?

Or fantasize about? :)

It's a fun fantasy, but the fact we're happy to see it highlights our impotency - even a line worker sympathetic to the power imbalance would be left at "Anyways, we'll charge the fee to your card on file"

I wonder if there's a business model for a "robo-lawyer" paired with a travel agency here: "Stay at one of these hotels using this credit card issued by us, sign this contract promising that you won't smoke there, and if the hotel tries anything funny, we'll reward you with the room rate back and a bonus" :)

The company that issues cards to be provided to phone phishers understands this perfectly :)

Can’t you do a charge back? Isn’t this a key kind of protection that credit cards give you?

Only if you want to get banned from ever staying in a hotel again

Obviously charging back Hyatt won't get you banned from Hilton. And the response question would be: Why would you returned to a hotel chain that scammed you?

Because that's where you job books when you travel?

Then that sounds like the employers problem, though. Hopefully they audit their expense accounts for stunts like that.

So they check the bill and see that you incurred a $500 fine for smoking in the room they paid for? How does this help :(

At some point the question is: "Do we trust the employee we've had on the books for the last few years".

Fortunately, the mid-sized places I've been at generally trust the employee's story when it comes to expenses -- at least unless it becomes a pattern.

If my workplace took the hotel's side for a bogus charge, I'm not sure I'd want to stay working there...

Are chargebacks useless now since they usually lead to being banned from that provider/vendor? Do a chargeback for a scammy App Store app, get your 1k smartphone bricked and your emails locked out?

It's always been the case that if you refuse to pay a bill the other party can refuse to do service with you.

Winning a chargeback isn't just refusing to pay a bill. A neutral third party confirmed you were in the right and the merchant was in the wrong, so it's unfair for the merchant to punish you for them.

Well the whole premise here is that the bill was incorrect, so why would I pay it as-is? And the billing party refused to adjust it, this is why I had to resort to a chargeback.

Partial chargebacks would be an interesting concept in this case.

I don’t know what I’m talking about but doesn’t that go both ways? If (say) AmEx is getting a ton of chargebacks from this one hotel, don’t they at some point say “that’s enough of that” and drop them as a client? It seems the hotel should really have a huge incentive to not do crap like this?

I think the problem is that for a huge hotel chain (say like the Marriot) to get hit with enough chargebacks that a credit card vendor drops them, it means that a huge amount of people would need to charge back and be willing to be banned from Marriot until something happens. Kind of like a union, if you're the first to strike or protest, you suffer until enough momentum happens to make a difference.

Hopefully hotels don't yet have an industry-wide "do not host" list without any appeal process...?

> Hopefully hotels don't yet have an industry-wide "do not host" list without any appeal process...?

There are lots of small operators, so I doubt that there's some industry wide list.

But there are only a few large operators. I'd be shocked if some of them didn't share info.

Hyatt and Marriott share their info with everybody every few years when they get hacked

"A hotel" ? Unlikely.

what power imbalance?

obviously if you give them cash deposit there's not much you can do, but with a credit card you can easily dispute the transaction

I always pay my bills in full and on time, but if a merchant tries giving me the run around I will simply dispute the transaction and then the pain moves entirely to them

with a credit card the power imbalance is entirely in the consumer's favour

This is the theory but in practice vendors can an often do retaliate by refusing to do business with you until you pay up - and since competition is barely existing in many instances that's going to be much more pain for the consumer than a credit card dispute is for the vendor.

Do hotels in the US not allow you to pay with cash any more? What if you don't have an internationally accepted card?

I worked at a small hotel during college. A couple of girls wanted to rent a room, but they didn't have a credit card. We didn't rent rooms without credit cards, but I made an exception. They paid for the room in cash and provided a small deposit. The girls were so sweet, how could anything go wrong? Well, they threw a party and completely trashed the room. Lots of damage. The police eventually showed up, but the girls were gone. The ID they provided turned out to be a fugazi. They played me.

It feels like if nobody proactively creates a privacy-preserving solution, exploitable ones arise into the vacuum. Or, as a more-depressing thought, they win out anyway.

At least the bottom quarter of the American population in terms of virtue would run away in situations like that. There are a lot of scoundrels.

Maybe even more… so what kind of cash based solution could there be? (that’s not physically preventing them from ever travelling)

30 years ago it was possible to check into a good US hotel with cash under an assumed name. That is pretty much impossible now; they want to see your ID and a credit card.

It might still be possible to pay cash in fleabag hotels; I don't know.

A few more than 30 years ago it was possible to buy plane tickets from the classified pages from people who, for whatever reason, couldn't take the flight. And of course the ticket was in their name, but no one cared. It was treated by the airlines like a purchased token. You had the token, you flew.

Try 60 years ago. I'm not sure when the change happened but 30 years ago cards were required. In 60+ year old books it is common for the 'dective' to look in the hotel book and find a false name.

That was not my experience 30 years ago.

I know that because the experience of being turned away from hotels while driving across country was why I applied for my first credit card.

I believe many US hotels won't let you check in without at least a debit card these days.

Possibly you can also put down the same amount they take as a hold on the card in cash, but I've never tried it.

I've stayed at a hotel in UAE that took a deposit that they returned on check out. They were perfectly fine with it in cash.

Last time I visited the US was in 2016 and back then my country wasn't an international outcast so I had a debit card that counted as credit in the system. I'm just curious what people like me would do these days. Or maybe the hotels I stayed at were too cheap.

You either need a card + ID, or a ~$300 cash deposit and ID.

Generally speaking, no. Most major hotel chains require a credit card.

Credit card is a proxy for an acceptable credit score. It's a filter so they can exclude irresponsible people without exposing themselves to claims of discrimination or racism.

Unfortunately people who simply choose to live without using credit are caught up in that too.

In Europe, UK and Ireland it’s not an actual credit card - a debit card is perfectly acceptable and normal.

Back when Russia had Visa and MasterCard, debit cards issued by our banks counted as credit cards as far as the payment systems were concerned. I'm sure there are other countries where this is the case.

Although it's better to use a credit card if possible as they put a rather large hold on it, which can wipe out your balance.

I had that happen in Portugal when I was refueling my scooter, the Galp gas station tired to take 100€, which I didn't have to it took everything it could, but then said that I don't have enough money to pay, even though it was less than 10€... I had to pay with cash and I didn't see the money that was taken on my debit card for almost a month...

I’ve seen some hotels actually take out an authorization hold for the deposit. That can be done on debit and credit cards.

You can easily book at big chains in the US as a foreigner despite having no credit score whatsoever so I don’t think that’s it. I guess it’s probably just that a having credit card and an id card ensure that they won’t have trouble charging you if they need to. The possibility alone is probably enough to deter most people who could be tempted to commit petty things like stealing towels.

Wouldn't cash be worse? With a credit card, you might be able to get your deposit back in a chargeback, but with cash, your deposit is definitely gone.

You can pay with cash. You usually can't stay without a credit card. Even debit often doesn't suffice.

Debit is a pain for them to deal with, because the hold they put on the card is a lot more than people expect. Customers complain when all of a sudden they have no money in their accounts.

I avoided getting credit cards for years, but you really do need on if you travel a lot.

I have never had an issue checking in with a debit card. A couple hundred dollar hold really shouldn't be an issue if you can afford to travel in the first place.

Is this a US thing? I stay at hotels from time to time across Europe, and I always pay a fixed price either when booking or at arrival for the whole stay. Never had to enter credit card information anywhere, and I never would precisely for this reason. I put my credit card information once when booking a car at an airport and was scammed with random scratches being found at return. Can't imagine ever going through that again. One of the worst and most infuriating money exchange experiences in my life.

No, it's a common practice in most western countries and can confirm for you a list of a dozen or more hotels ranging from $100/night to $1000/night that do this in countries ranging from Ireland to France to Japan. It's really no big deal and is extremely common. In fact, France as I discovered does this at the gas stations where they put $200 or so authorizations on your card for absolutely no good reason.

There are various scenarios but I think the one you are thinking of is you show up to the hotel, hand them your cash, and pay at the desk. Often times, though I have not been in a hotel that will not ask for a card, they ask you for a credit card and put an authorization on there in case you smoke in the room, or maybe turn it into spaghetti or any other random incidentals.

An authorization is basically the hotel telling the credit card that they're "reserving space" so to speak on your credit limit on the card.

Regarding your rental car experience, that's a common scam and again moreso seen in Europe, but not really anything to do with the method of payment. They would have just mailed you a bill for the damages instead. I guess you could ignore it.

> France as I discovered does this at the gas stations where they put $200 or so authorizations on your card for absolutely no good reason.

It's the same here but I'm not sure how it could work another way? They have to make sure you have the money to pay for the fuel you're pumping, it doesn't seem weird to me.

I can't imagine a pump that allows you to pump as you wish and then just begs you to pay. That works for the manned stations with low traffic only.

It ends up being bank dependant a bit. (USA here)

If I use either my cashapp or chime card I had better have the full $100-200 on there or it will fail the authorisation.

On the other hand my main bank is a local bank and they treat all gas station preauth's as a $1 charge. So I can have say $30 in the account and still get $25 in gas whereas many other cards/banks would just decline.

That’s how it works if I choose “pay at cashier” - if I walk up and don’t have the money the fuel is already in my car.

Where? In the U.S.? Whenever I have paid for gas with cash or from the cashier, I pay for it in advance, “Give me $10 of regular unleaded!”

I think “everywhere in the world except the US” is probably right. I live in a major city in the UK and did it last week.

Before the 2008 Great Recession, most gas stations around me allowed people to pump then pay cash. After some stories of people driving off without paying, the stations changed their policies.

Many service stations in Canada still operate this way.

It also works like that at manned stations in France, but there are few.

I think maybe what happens is they tap your cards fully possible authorization limit and if you end up trying to get gas multiple times in a short time period (24/48 hours) you can't use your card because they can't hit it for the full limit.

The gas station is supposed to release the authorization after the real payment clears when you stop the pump. So they should not pile up even if you do many visits in short period of time.

In Finland the has pump firsts ask you to choose how big an authorization you want to do when you enter your card to the slot. It will not allow you to pump more than that and the authorization is then replaced by real charge before you enter you car.

I think that's what the problem was in France specifically, the authorizations don't clear as you expect and then your credit card authorization limit gets hit and when you go somewhere else to get gas and use the same kind, it gets mysteriously declined.

I've only had this specific problem in France. Funny enough my American Express cards worked better than my Visa or Mastercard did.

The rental experience has everything to do with payment. With a credit card, a person has to prove they shouldn't have been charged by a corporation, and without, the corporation has to prove a person should be charged. That's a massive difference. It blows my mind how people think putting down a credit card is normal. You're basically giving somebody access to your money to be used at their leasure.

> You're basically giving somebody access to your money to be used at their leasure.

Well, it’s the issuing banks money, not mine. At the end of the day the process ends up the same. If I tell the credit card company to pound sand on a charge I disagree with they send me a bill and then send it to collections.

If I tell the rental car company to pound sand, they send me a bill and send it to collections.

You actually have more power and leeway when using a credit card because if there are enough disputes or issues then the rental agency can be banned from access to the network. If you pay with cash there’s nobody else involved.

The credit card is even better because if you dispute a charge and have evidence you have someone on your side against the rental agency.

Even with all that being said, it’s worth getting a few thousand or so bucks/year back in cash back on the off chance something like this happens while you continue to pay full price for everything you buy.

No, it's not. I just checked into 6 hotels across 5 countries in both Eastern and Western Europe last month, and every single one needed a tapped physical credit card for a deposit on top of my pre-paid booking (sometimes via booking.com, sometimes direct with the hotel).

I can't remember ever NOT having to leave a CC for a deposit in any hotel I've ever stayed at in any country in my life. I'm sure it's happened, but it sure isn't remarkable when they DO require a card.

It's like we live in a different reality. I check into hotels every year in Europe for business trips and vacations. I book through sites like booking.com, I pay ahead via my bank, I don't give my debit card information, and I don't own a credit card.

Is it possibly a quirk of your country of origin? I'm assuming you're an EU citizen, and I'm not sure how EU rules work, but perhaps your country has overriding rules that prohibit deposits from being required? Or perhaps paying "via bank" has some implicit damage deposit mechanism going on? Can we ask for you to steal a bathrobe next time to see what happens, in the name of science? :D

I do most of my bookings from US soil with a credit card for guarantee or pre-pay (I do a mix of both), but never direct bank account. So one could imagine the rules for my bookings are different than yours. However I do sometimes make bookings mid-trip, and have not noticed a different damage policy, and, in Europe, I check in with an EU passport so I'd probably be subjected to the same rules/policies as any other European.

FYI, chatgpt gave me an unsatisfying answer that, basically, "European guests MIGHT not be asked for a deposit, sometimes, because they're local and therefore slightly more trusted", but it certainly doesn't sound like you should be escaping deposits 100% of the time. So perhaps there's another reason out there we've still not discovered.

https://chatgpt.com/share/687d38d1-101c-8004-8119-6c433dd32c...

I stopped using Airbnb because of the ridiculous "cleaning" fees and happily went back to hotels. But what Hyatt did in the US is shameful. The government should investigate, and the CEO should probably step down.

Seems like a candidate for class action lawsuits against the hotel, the brand, and the sensor company?

Class action lawsuits are a boon for corpos. They take what should be many separate instances of fraud with unknown unknowns and tie them all off in one small garbage bag. Half the money goes to the attorneys and the other half is a token payment or even just funds a coupon to encourage doing more business with the perpetrator.

I'd really like to see some service that facilitates you opting out of a class action, and then comes in later representing you for your own individual case (at scale) based on the implicit admission of wrongdoing from the settlement plus documenting actual damages.

There was a big thing about this a few years ago -- companies didn't want class actions (too expensive in lawyers, primarily), so they forced binding arbitration agreements into their EULA. Then a big law firm filed thousands of binding arbitrations on behalf of what was basically the class. The company had to pay $1000's/arbitration in fees to the arbitration company, which also didn't have an incentive to reduce the number of arbitrations when the company tried to get out of it. Turned into an incentive to not put binding arbitration clauses in agreements...

Was it necessary to make your point in a very snarky manner?

Edit: For context, the first sentence of the version I commented on was "You do realize that class action lawsuits are a boon for corpos, right?", which comes across as quite snarky. It was edited at some point.

Yes, I edited it out. You were right, and I figured it better for the conversation to just not start off with that phrasing. Sorry for not seeing a way to make that apparent while also not growing accidental complexity.

They're a boom compared the the impossible ideal world where every instance is prosecuted separately, but barring the superhuman feat of getting thousands of individuals to show up to court, they are certainly far worse for corporations than any realistic alternate scenario.

One alternative is having consumer protection laws with teeth and state-sponsored consumer protection agencies pursuing lawsuits to enforce their boundaries. It works fairly well that way in some European countries.

Consumer protection laws with teeth? In the US?

I said realistic scenario.

One alternative scenario is for courts to start recognizing administrative runaround as actual damages. It sounds like there is a lot of back and forth to correct these fraudulent bills, so estimating maybe 4 days of 4 hours of paralegal-equivalent time ~ $1600. But then additional legal fees on top of that for having to press the matter, so ~$5000? Whereas a class action lawsuit would net like maybe $20 token payment to victims, so $40 cost to company. So perhaps only 1 out of 100 people who were wronged would have to actually sue to make it just as bad for the corpo. Never mind getting into things like treble damages as these corpos are deliberately committing these frauds.

good luck with that lol

Yes it's called a lawsuit for defrauding consumers. Hopefully someone actually does it though

I'm sure the hotel will blame the company that sold them the sensors, and the company that built them will blame some developer who changed the sensitivity value from 6 to 8. Everyone will act shocked, the developer will get fired, and the new revenue stream will be called "customers who visited adult websites on a shared private network." I doubt that will end up on TikTok :)

In most countries there would be no wondering if there are ways to penalize the companies. This is flagrantly against the law in most of he civilized world and it wouldn't last 5 seconds.

It's called the criminal justice system, specifically the longstanding laws against fraud. But it requires effective government to implement, and government has been becoming ever less effective at such things (it tends to give corpos a pass based on diffusing responsibility rather than properly charging everyone involved with criminal conspiracy)

Another pillar of the problem is the corpos having excepted themselves from basic libel/slander laws through the "Fair" Credit Reporting Act. The common response should be one round of "piss off, prove it", with then a high barrier for the fraudster to substantiate such a debt in a court of law. Instead people are put on the defensive by the thought of such lies going on their permanent surveillance records, and perhaps becoming some kind of problem in the future.

> There has got to be a way to penalize companies for attempting this kind of thing

Yes, don't go to them.

Love,

Canada

> put the burden of proof that everything was fine on them.

as if they need more incentives to surveil everything

This is what the federal consumer protection board was created and designed for, but now all of that has gone when this administration fired them and closed it.

Yeah, it’s called regulation and consumer protection.

Well, if you had kept Lina Khan at the head of the FTC and not elected Trump, the country could work on continuing to improve consumer protections.

There is a way. Don’t give them any of your money.

So now the debt they claim you owe is partially valid...

(Yes, I'm being obtuse. In response to a simplistically obtuse point)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com