Blockbuster sued over "NO LATE FEES" claim

What the hell is a "restocking fee?"

The fee to compensate for the arduous task of putting the film back on the shelf.

And yeah, the "No Late Fees" thing is total shit. They're basically just extending their rental period. Whoop-dee-do.

Frivilous lawsuit.

The late fee is still gone, no matter what they call their "restocking fee." Fuck the customer who thinks they're keeping a DVD forever for a one-day rental fee. Obviously there has to be some penalty at some point for never returning the DVD. This is a lawsuit for the people too stupid enough to read the fine print (which I'm sure is not so fine).

This is just laughable... Blockbusters that are franchised and not directly operated by the parent company don't even have to adhere to the "No Late Fee" scam. Several of the stores near where I live are franchised and and still use the old system.
Whatever, it's not like I ever go there unless I have no other options, and even then it's not like I even rent movies that often anyway... but Blockbuster deserves whatever punishment they get...

Thi isn't a disgruntled loser trying to make an easy buck. This is an Attorney General and it's incredibly misleading because they never mention what happens if you keep it for over an extra week. What happens if you rent a shitload of films and it takes you a while to get through them? What if it's a videogame that takes a while to beat? If people think they can keep it for a few months with no problem, it's not the craziest thing in the world.

Why not just say, "Keep your films an extra week!" That's good enough. But they got greedy.

I knew it was only a matter of time before something like this would happen. Having been a former employee of Blockbuster, I would say about 70% of the customers visiting the store I worked in were complete idiots. Once I learned the full details regarding the new NO LATE FEES policy, I just laughed and thought "Those poor suckers."

Netflix has no late fees and they mean it. Join now!

I love this mentality: people are stupid so it's okay to rip them off! I know we should put more blame on the fool who follows, but let's not ignore the original fool.

The commercial says "an extra day or two", not "a few months."

Yeah, but it doesn't say you'll be charged the full price if you decided to keep it a little longer.

3-4 days after your DVD is past the due date, you get an automated message and the office in Dallas sends out a mailing.

This lawsuit is stupid. If you want, you can have a movie out for 36 extra days for only 1.25.

The problem is that Blockbuster's don't want people knowing how long the initial grace period is. Still common sense is that you'd at least get something back within 2 weeks of the due date, even if you had to pay the 1.25.

It sounds like Blockbuster is reluctant to clearly explain the policy to its customers. If I want to know the exact policy, I have to "see a blockbuster associate for details"? That's fucked up. They should make their policy available by clearly listing it somewhere in the store (on a sign, pamphlets, etc) and not be so vague about it in the advertising. The commercials do seem misleading. No late fees should mean exactly that. If they want to charge a monthly membership fee like netflix, then they should state that. All this stuff about restocking fees, charging the retail price of the movie to customers, etc. is bullshit. Would you want to pay full retail price for a previously viewed movie with no original packaging? I wouldn't ask to use the blockbuster bathroom, much less give them any of my fucking business.

I'm not saying that it isn't reasonable for them to charge when a movie is kept past its due date, I'm saying they have a legal responsibility to be honest in their advertising. That's why the lawsuit makes sense. It isn't enough to say no late fees without elaborating on their actual policy.

LOL

Dude...its like...common fucking sense. You can't just keep a movie out for 2 weeks. Its stupid and unnecessary. Who the fuck keeps movies for more than 2 weeks??? Its ONE fucking MOVIE. My god!! What, you don't have 2 hours to spend in a week to watch the damn thing. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? Its because of you lazy insensitive assholes that the next guy can't rent the goddamn movie. Common courtesy motherfuckers.

1.25 for 2 weeks...wow..that's just...fucking WHOPPPING!!! Its HUGE!! Its the end of the world!! its a late fee!! Dude...1.25 is cheaper than the usual late fee. Jesus, relax. It shouldn't even count as a late fee.

False advertising? Read the asterisk buddy.

This lawsuit is ridiculous.

Whether or not people are stupid for not fully reading the fine print is absolutely meaningless to the problem here. Companies cannot just advertise whatever the hell they want. The fact is, a restocking fee for having a film longer than a week is a late fee. If there is a date that you have to have a movie back in order to avoid a fine, that's a fucking LATE FEE. While that fee may be small, it is still a late fee. What they charge has absolutely nothing to do with that fact.

As for the arguement that it wouldn't make sense for a company to actually never have fees for not returning movies...that's exactly why they shouldn't be advertising and implimenting such a program. It's a manipulative message meant to bring in consumers under false pretenses. "No late fees" is such a strong message, that it's going to bring in new customers & Blockbuster knows this. However, they'd be crazy to actually impliment such a program. So, they're trying to use the message to bring in consumers, without actually living up to it. It's like putting a label on a package of fruit that says "This will prevent cancer!"; of course people are going to buy a product with such a message, but just because a company says something, doesn't make it true.

You are all argueing for the right of huge corporations to lie to consumers in order to increase business. That's pretty disgusting.

What does it say about what happens when you keep it longer than "an extra day or two"? Nothing. Sure, customers should still be skeptical, but this is the definiton of deceptive advertising. By law they have to tell you EXACTLY what the terms are.

What is the "restocking fee"? A fee for the movie being one week late. How is that not a late fee again?

What's common sense? I'm supposed to psychically know that when they say "No Late Fees" they actually mean they'll charge me a restocking fee after some amount of time, and then charge me the retail price of the movie after another period of time? Sorry, my psychic powers aren't working today. The point that it's stupid and unnecessary to keep a movie for 2 weeks is irrelevant. The lawsuit is reasonable because the Blockbuster ad is misleading. It's the same as the KFC ad last year that said their chicken was part of a healthy diet. Just because everyone knows it's bullshit doesn't make it ok for them to claim. What if blockbuster's ad said "All of our movies are free, just like the library", but when you got there, they charged you? It would make sense for them to charge, since they are a business, and it would be illogical to think the movies would be free, but they fucking said it. The have a legal responsibility to not be misleading in their advertising.

90% of the time when a company runs a very ambitious promotion (like this one, or zero % financing, etc.) there is some major small print in there (watch the bottom of the screen). Sure, one can argue that you want the whole story up front. But if you've ever worked in advertising or marketing, I'm sure you'll recognize that it isn't practical or effective to stuff a boring 3 minute explanation into a dynamic 30 second commercial.

How is that a late fee? Sooner or later the company has to assume that the customer has opted not to return the product, and then it must be replaced. I don't see why it takes a customer more than one week to drive to the store to drop off the movie, unless they live in Alaska and have to use a dogsled or something. Personally I've had my share of late returns over the years, but I can't remember ever being more than two days late.

So let me get this straight. Blockbuster took out ads that deliberately deceive people, blatantly telling them that they had NO MORE late fees, when they actually do, and you're saying that we should be greatful, because they switched their rental term to two weeks?

You know what? I am greatful. Thank you Blockbuster. Thank you so much for your underhanded attempt to compete with Netflix.

Where does it say in the advertisement that the rental term has changed to two weeks? I'm pretty sure it hasn't changed.

No, the online service is attempting to compete with Netflix.

This is the point of the lawsuit. They didn't tell anybody anything about what they were actually doing. Bottom line, it is two weeks before they charge you. You can dress it up however you want, (which is exactly what Blockbuster is doing) but after all the bullshit and creative wording, it effectively just makes up a two week rental period. The only reason they have any type of online thing in the first place is that Blockbuster, the chain store, was losing business to Netflix. This is because they were, and are, in direct competition, regardless of if they now also have a online divison to try to catch the people who don't want to use a store location for whatever reason.

I'm sorry, but if John Q. Dumbass needs to do that much research to rent a movie from a retail store, then it's probably not worth stopping by after work to pick up that copy of White Chicks...

No it isn't. There is nothing in the advertising to indicate that the standard rental period has changed, or at least I haven't seen it.

All Mr. Dumbass has to do is make a half-assed effort to return his movies close to the due date. No research required. Quite frankly if he's going out to rent White Chicks he's probably better off just staying home and slitting his wrists.

They've intentionally organized this so that, through whatever means, people can take movies out for two weeks, thus giving them exactly the same thing as a two week rental. Calling it a grace period is a marketing ploy to get people to think, "oh, what a great deal I'm getting", and nothing more. Correct. As I said before, the reason why is that Blockbuster did not attempt to tell people what their new policies were in their ad campaign.

So you think that sometimes, companies should just be allowed to totally lie about what they offer?

All Mr. Dumbass has to do is make a half-assed effort to return his movies close to the due date. No research required. Quite frankly if he's going out to rent White Chicks he's probably better off just staying home and slitting his wrists.

Agreed. My point is that 98% of the population is only going to hear three words: no, late, and fees. They're going to glaze over at anything beyond that. You're overestimating most people's intellect when it comes to retail and advertising. Most people are going to glaze over when the teenage clerk tries to explain that "No Late Fees" really means "longer rental period."

Damned quote tags... you've thwarted me for the last time...

I still think you are misinterpreting the program. It is not extending the predetermined rental period in any way. Rather, it is simply allowing customers to be a few days late with their movie without penalty. The fact that the movies are overdue after the due date has not changed.

Imagine if you start a new job where you are supposed to be at your desk by 8 AM. Since you have a very long, tough commute, you ask you co-worker how hard the boss cracks down on tardiness, and he says the boss really won't sweat it as long as you're there by 9. However, if you start habitually showing up at 9 or even 9:05 (figuring 5 minutes more is no big deal) I'm sure the boss would get pissed, as you're expected to be there by 8.

No, you're misinterpreting. I can rent a "2-Day Rental" DVD, keep it 7 days, return it, no late charge. Is it really a 2-Day Rental? No. It's a 7-Day rental, because on the 8th day, they charge you for it. Read my lips: IT'S A LATE FEE. And Blockbuster has advertised that there are NO late fees AT ALL. Not "Extended Viewing Periods if You're Running Behind." No one would have a qualm about that. The ad campaign makes no mention of this, so it's a pretty clear case of false advertising.

The difference being that unlike having your boss start to get pissed and maybe trust you less, there is NO penalty for fully utilizing the extra days that Blockbuster "gives" you. If there is absolutely no downside, what reason is there to awknowledge it as anything other than an extended rental period?

Theres nothing to distinguish this from just being a 2-week rental system.

- Fate

Ok. Call me mister FOOL. I hadnt been to a blockbuster in over 2 years until they opened right down the street from me 4 months ago. When January started.. Blockbuster started the $15 rental fee service for a month and NO LATE FEES.

I joined the $15 rental fee service thinking Blockbuster and Blockbuster.com were the same company. Turns out the $15 a month fee was only for January and that you are just on their movie pass program and get charged $25 a month the rest of the year. They never told me that. So when February came around and the $25 hit my credit card I was like "what the hell". Then I realized I guess I was a dumbass for not searching out the fine print.

But regardless the employees never told me this. As for the movie pass deal, this is what they told me concerning late fees.... You can rent any movie 2 movies at a time. You can keep them as long as you want during the month period but if you want to rent 2 more movies just bring in the 2 you rented to exchange for 2 more. I havent had any problem with late fees for keeping the New releases for more than 4 days.. but I havent kept a 2 day release for more than 4 days for fear of they implementing another fucked up fee, even though I'm on movie pass.

but regardless the employees really do not tell you anything you need to know about their "programs". I honestly think they are instructed NOT to say. Does blockbuster suck? Yes. Will I still continue to go there? Unfortunately Yes. I'm weak.

I see what you're saying, but your analogy doesn't apply in this situation. They aren't saying that it is okay to take it out for longer, just as long as it doesn't happen again, they are encouraging you to do it as much as you like. There isn't any special situation required. Its a static thing, for everyone, all the time. If you told someone that they could take out movies at Blockbuster for two weeks, it would always be true, every time they tried. Believing that you are somehow 'in luck' or that they are 'letting you slide' for that 'extra' week which everyone gets, EVERY time, is just full on giving in to their marketing crap.

Like you just said, the question was never, "should people look out for themselves?" Of course they should. This is the responsibility of an adult. The question is, "should companies be allowed to tell people things that simply aren't true?" I think people in this thread are having trouble separating the two.

I think they're in the clear regarding the "No Late Fees" argument. With the old system, you were charged cumulative late fees, while BB kept ownership of the movie. With the new system, they're renting out the movies, and giving you some extra time after the due date to return it.

If you don't return it, BB charges you for the movie, with the assumption that you intend to purchase it. Whether that's right or wrong is another question entirely, but when you walk into Blockbuster 2 months later with that movie, it's your movie, not Blockbusters. The cost of the DVD gets charged to your account, and that's what you're expected to pay. Your other option is to sell the DVD back to BB, which they'll accept back for a full refund, minus that $1.25 restocking fee.


It's clear that BB is doing this not only to increase their rental business, but to get a bigger piece out of the DVD sales market also. I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like they have a good legal argument. A customer can rent a movie for a certain period of time. Once the due date passes, they're given a one week grace period. After that, BB assumes that the customer intends to keep the movie, and charges them accordingly for it. Once that transfer of ownership happens, they're in the clear. The $1.25 restocking fee only happens after the customer chooses to sell the DVD back to BB.

The transfer of ownership may be transparent to most customers, but that doesn't mean that BB is doing anything illegal.

This lawsuit has absolutely no merit and is just another example of people getting sue-happy at the drop of a hat. The marketing campaign states that it is "THE END OF LATE FEES", and that's exactly what it is. To understand that, you have to ask yourself, "What is a late fee?"

A late fee essentially has two purposes:
(A) TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO BRING BACK WHAT THEY HAVE RENTED WHEN THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO. If the movie-renting public had absolutely no incentive to bring back movies, they wouldn't, it's just that simple.
(B) TO REGAIN PROFIT POTENTIALLY LOST FROM NOT HAVING THE MOVIE RETURNED ON TIME. Video rental stores, whether it's Blockbuster or anyone else, make money from renting movies. If the movie isn't there, no money.

Now, as to whether this $1.25 restocking fee is a late fee? Absolutely not. First of all, it does not significantly affect a customer's decision on when to bring back a movie. Secondly, it does nothing to regain lost revenue. Since this company voluntarily chopped a third of their annual revenue off by implementing this program, we could more accurately refer to it as a "Let's keep the doors open" fee.

I think it's ridiculous how people look at late fees. If you rent a hotel room and aren't out by checkout time, they bill you. If you return your rental car a day late, they bill you. The fact that you can rent a movie from Blockbuster now and keep it until you're literally sick of looking at it, and then return it with a $1.25 "restocking fee" is not a bad deal at all.

when I first saw the ads I immediately went to the website to find out what the deal was, the article has it wrong. After the extra week they assume that you're going to keep it and charge the retail price minus the rental fee to your account. Since they assume they sold it to you, they mark it out of their system. After that 7 day period you have 30 days to bring it back and have the retail price refunded, but you're charged the restocking fee because chances are they already replaced the copy you were assumed to have bought and now they have to sell the copy at the used price which is lower than the retail price. After the 30 days you can't return it and have to pay the retail price.

The article is slightly inaccurate.

EDIT: Whoops, 2 posts late.

On a side note: Blockbuster was trying to buy Hollywood Video? Crap, that would have sucked, Hollywood Video is the best rental outlet out there, what with their 99cent general stock instead of $3-4 like Blockbuster. I'd go in there all the time and rent 5 DVDs for 5 bucks, and on tuesdays they always had $2 new releases after 9pm.

Utter bullshit. If they charge you a fee for returning a movie past a certain amount of time, it's a goddamn late fee. I'm amazed how many people can be so willingly dumb about this.

And I'm amazed that people are actually angry about silly things like this.

Here's my take on it. Legally, since the fee is a restocking fee and not a late fee, they can claim that they have "No late fees" and have it be perfectly, legally correct. Ethically, it's bullshit. It boils down to a two week rental period with a late fee afterward, which they are dressing up under false pretenses to get more business. Is it ethically right? No, they are flat out lying to the customer. To me, "No late fees" means that they can't charge you a fee for returning a movie after a certain date. But they do. Is it legally right? Yes, they don't charge "late fees" any more. It's bullshit, and the fact that they can legally get away with it shows how messed up our legal system is.

How is it legally right?

Because technically it isn't a late fee and the law is all about technicalities and not about common sense. Hey, if you don't like it then don't shop BB. That's what capitalism is all about. If someone's business practices are disagreeable to the majority they won't last long. As it is I think that the whole law suit is bogus. BB's fee is reasonable and they will still (very occasionally) get my business.

That's exactly it. They don't call it a late fee. Since they don't charge a fee for not returning it after their appointed "due date", it probably doesn't technically qualify as a late fee. Sure, in practice it's still a late fee, but like the cap'n said, it technically isn't a late fee. That's why this is so sneaky and underhanded. I'm sure the law will side with Blockbuster. It's bullshit, and they're definately not getting any of my business now (I used to go in their if I really wanted a movie and Hollywood didn't have it). It just pisses me off that they can so blatently lie to the customer and not have any legal repercussions.

Hell, just the sheer fact that so many people are arguing that "It's not a late fee" shows how successful this campaign has been. Is it a fee that they charge for returning a movie after a certain date? Yes. Is it technically classified as a 'late fee'. Nope. And that makes it legally right and OK.

It IS a late fee. If I kill someone, but call it 'not-killing', am I going to get the legal benefit of the doubt? Have I not killed someone? Just because they have a different name for it doesn't make it legal.

We'll see how the courts settle this. I could be wrong. However, I think the courts will favor Blockbuster, probably for the exact reason I mentioned. And if that happens, even though this is morally corrupt as hell, it would be legally right.

Are films that are returned on time re-stocked?

Actually if you kill someone in self defense it is justifiable homicide and not illegal. Oh also killing fetuses, not illegal.

No they are re-shelved.

Movies returned late are not re-shelved?

Yes but as a poster above said, if you don't return a movie in a timely fashion then they have to "re-stock" a movie so that they can have enough copies to rent. This goes towards that expense I would imagine.