Blockbuster sued over "NO LATE FEES" claim - Page 2

That's what happens when you don't return a movie for a month and have to pay for the whole thing.

You only have to pay for the whole thing if you don't return it period.

No they are re-flocked.

The official restocking fee reasoning:

"BLOCKBUSTER incurs processing, administrative and other costs when we have to convert rental product to a sale, as well as when you return the product after that sale. The restocking fee helps to cover that cost."

Actually I was wrong here, past thirty days it's yours.

So can you guys who are fully behind this "No more late fees" thing understand what we're talking about when we say that, essentially, it just boils down to a two week rental period with a late fee if you don't return it in that time?

Duuuuhhhh, no I'm 2 stoopid.

Yes we get they you think it's a late fee with a two week rental period. We view it differently, but it's all semantics really.

Considering how much you're not getting it, I wouldn't be suprised if your first response was correct.

And you know what, actually contractually it could be that we're right. Your agreement requires you to return your video on the "date and time stated on the transaction receipt". So you are obligated to return it on time and BB is not obligated not to charge you a late fee according to your membership contract.

You're sooooo cute. Can we go steady?

There is nothing worse than people defending a big corporation that is engaging in specifically false advertising.

The No Late Fees thing is confusing because people know about netflix and blockbuster.com and think this is the same sort of deal. The No Late Fees is designed to feed on that confusion.

Anyone who says the restocking fee is not a late fee is a baboon.

THAT is exactly the crux of the issue. The policy is fine (or, at least, it's their prerogative as a business) but they are clearly being ambiguous about explaining it. It is indeed misleading.

Then again, why people still frequent Blockbuster is beyond me.

So, Netflix has a new radio commercial that hits on the same topic: no late fees.

They say that if you keep the 3 DVDs you've rented for 97 years, there is no late fee.

Now they do say that the fee for Netflix if 17.99 month, but they don't specifically say that you will be charged $20,940.36 for those DVDs for that period. Is that false advertising, as well?

I don't defend BB. I condemn the people who truly believe that with "no late fee," you have no responsibilty to return the movie ever, and incur no fee at all. That's who I think the lawsuit trying to "protect".

That's not even close to the same thing. The netflix system makes sense - you pay a monthly fee and you have unlimited time. You can waste your money by keeping the DVDs forever, or you can move with them quickly, but you'll be paying the exact same amount for 6 months of netflix whether you only ever get 2 dvds or 200.

That makes basic sense. It's like a gym membership - you know you get charged every month, so it's up to you to make the most of it.

Basic sense.

Yes, I agree. In that sense, you know you are getting charged.

But in this lawsuit, the concept of "late fees" is being questioned. What is a late fee? One day? One week? Two weeks? Every video rental business has a different definition of what constitutes a late fee. If BB has redefined the term, then that is their right, as long as they say so in the fine print. They can't be at fault for the consumers definition of what a late fee is. What I'm trying to say is that the late fee has evolved over the years because of video stores changing their rental periods, so the late fee has evolved, as well. Now it's a restocking fee. The customer would know if they read the rules.

But we all know about the customer, don't we. If you've worked in a video store, then I'm sure you know about the intelligence of the common video store customer.

That has nothing to do with it. And you're arguing from some misanthropic cash register jockey position, not a legal one. Late fees are late fees, and since Blockbuster is not ending late fees, they are engaging in false advertising. They are engaging in deceitful business practices by changing what they call late fees, they are not making the information obvious and available to customers and they are counting on you getting confused with true services that have no late fees, like netflix and blockbuster.com

I don't care how stupid people are, it doesn't mean they should be fleeced.

If you knew nothing about renting, and you saw the Netflix add (never seen it), and you had human-level intelligence, you would know that a 97 year membership would be in the thousands.

If you knew nothing about renting, and you saw the Blockbuster add, you would think that you could keep the movies indefinitely without a late fee.

Why on earth are you people defending corporate deceit? Even if it's your job.

People defend this stuff because it makes them feel superior to the people who fell for it.

It says 'No Late Fees'. There are certain fees that are only applied if you're late, and every time you're late more than a certain number of days. That's a late fee, regardless of the legal verbage they use on the receipts and the membership agreement. Case closed.

Calling this the 'We'll make it harder for you to figure out the real due date' plan would be more accurate.

Being a person who hates when arguments turn in to "I'm right because you're stupid." (which most of them do) I offer this solution seeking question:
Since I can't see where anyone on here has labeled this new policy as unfair (just mislabeled) what would you reccomend calling it? Instead of "The End of Late Fee's" should it be "Longer Rental Periods with lower consequences!" ?
I for one like the new policy, I haven't had to pay a restocking fee so far, but I enjoy getting the extra couple of days to return a movie. Plus, since I had an existing late fee when the policy went into effect, when I paid it, they gave me a coupon for a free rental. Oh yes, I can be bought. Seriouly though, do you think it would solve matters if they re-worded it, and how?

Yes they are.

No, they are not. 'No late fees' implies 'no due date'. There IS a due date, however... and I mean 'due date' in the practical this-is-when-they-start-charging-me-more-money-for-the-rental sense.

I'm not arguing that they should let people keep the DVDs forever without extra charges. I'm arguing that 1) they need to make it very obvious that there are extra charges, and 2) they need to make it just as obvious when these charges kick in, and how much they'll be. The marketing slogan 'No Late Fees' obscures that information. That's irresponsible. Worse, it's deceptive... they are making money (in, ahem, 'restock' fees) off their policy of downplaying the due date.

I'd rather be the guy pointing out that the text 'No Late Fees' printed in 144-point type all over the store is deceptive, than the guy pointing out that they apply restrictions in 6-point type at the bottom of the ads. The whole issue is contained in the difference in the size of those fonts.

Yes they are. It's on flyers in their stores. It's on their web site. If you sign something and don't read it, that's your fault, not the store's.

A due date is a due date whether they start charging you money or not. You are contractually, though not financially, obligated to return your video when the reciept says you should, not when you think you should.

How can they make it more obvious than they have? I mena I HATE law suits like this. "No one told me I should wear a helmet on my ATV adn not due flips. I'm gonna SUE!" "No one told me that I shouldn't let my kid play violent video games adn now he shot up the school. I'm gonna SUE!!" "No one told me that this coffee was gonna be stinkin' hot..." Well you get the picture. They have information on their website and in their stores. The ad is just that, an ad. The problem is that people are taking this FAR too seriously. It's a buck and a quarter for crying out loud.

Of course you would, it's easier. Look I'm not a big trumpeter for big business, but this just isn't that big a deal. If a person didn't know about it (which again is their fault) then they get a buck twenty five fee, plus paying for a movie and that's it. Their leg isn't broke. No dry cleaning bill to pay. Everyone is alive at days end and they're wiser for it. Don't EVER sign ANY contract without READING THE FINE PRINT. How difficult is that?

By bringing up the hot coffee case you've pretty much killed any idea that you know what you're talking about here.

This whole "No Late Fees" campaign is a disaster. They haven't explained to people in the stores what it means, and I already see new signs that try to say a little bit more than the first ones I saw.

When you go to the "no late fees" website, you get page with no content on it.
http://www.blockbuster.com/homepages...Fees&nav=false
(tried it both in Firefox and IE)

It's as if they're counting on people getting confused about this.

I was merely bringing up other frivolous lawsuits.

And you know what you're talking about, how?

It wasn't a frivolous lawsuit at all, read about it;
http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMedia...offeecase.aspx

Third degree burns on the genitals from coffee that was heated to a degree that McDonald's emplyees KNEW was harmful to their consumers isn't a frivelous lawsuit.

I still think that McDonald's lawsuit was pretty stupid and frivelous in that it placed ALL of the blame on McDonald's when the fact is the old bag put the coffee between her legs while driving and spilled it on herself.

Then again, I've long grown tired of the fact that no one takes any personal responsibility for ANYTHING anymore in this pussed out society. It's always someone else's fault.

Just like the jackasses in San Francisco who are insiting that the city install "Suicide Barriers" on the Golden Gate Bridge. Because, you know... it's simply the ease of jumping off that is at fault for the suicides.

One twit even remarked, "The bridge is a work of art and beautiful... but it's not beauty when it takes lives".

Fucking people. I swear.

She wasn't driving. The car wasn't moving.

"You are not entitled to an opinion. You are entitled to an INFORMED opinion." -- Harlan Ellison

And even still, she had the reasonable expectation that spilling coffee would not mean she needed surgery. I spilled a HUGE cup of very, very hot coffee on myself last week and I had no need for skin grafts.

I've put beverages between my legs before & am aware that I'm taking a chance that said beverage may spill. However, when I put a cup of something between my legs, I'm also under the impression that if it does spill, it's not going to sear my fucking body to a crisp. McDonalds knew, & was warned about the dangers, and not only didn't stop, they didn't warn consumers.

You can't hand out molten coffee without telling people "Hey, spill this and your genitals will be burned off. Thanks for choosing McDonalds".

To most people, a late fee is a fee that is charged after you don't bring a movie back after a certain period of time. Which is what Blockbuster is doing, whether they call it a late fee or not. By saying "No late fees", Blockbuster is trying to imply that you can keep the movie for as long as you want, and not pay any fee, kind of like Netflix. In fact, I think that's the main reason people are getting so pissed off about this. It's not that Blockbuster is lying to customers (which I guess is debatable), but that they are doing it specifically to try and drive Netflix out of business. It a sneaky and underhanded business trick. I originally wrote tactic instead of trick, but I think the word trick fits it better. They are trying to decieve people, and they get out of it by saying "Read the fine print".

I'm all for personal responsibility, but you gotta draw the line somewhere. Not wearing a helmet whilst ATV riding is just stupid. This blurs the line a little bit. It's just where I choose to draw that line. I don't want to have to read a 35 page legal document just to rent a video.

Yeah she should have figured that the coffe could spill. The fault isn't entirely McDonald's. However, there is a world of difference between hot and that shit. The word molten is a little bit of exaggeration, but not much.

But still, some of these lawsuits are stupid. In one of my psychology classes in college, I watched a video on frivolous lawsuits. A couple having sex on some train tracks gets hit by a train, survives, and sues the train company. A man riding a bike at night without lights or reflectors gets hit by a car, and sues the bike manufacturer for not putting a warning sticker on the bike to tell people not to ride the bike at night without lights or reflectors. Some of these lawsuits are just idiotic. This one may be. But that doesn't change the fact that Blockbuster is trying to decieve customers to drive a major competitor out of business.

I did not state that McDonald's was not at all at fault in that incident. But it's also not as if the employee purposely threw molten lava onto the poor woman, which is basically how it is portrayed by some. She bears some of the responsibility.

Anyway, my point goes beyond this one case. We're litigious to the point of insanity. I mean, this is a country where chainsaw manufacturers have to have a warning label to "Do not touch the blade while motor is running" and cities are mulling over putting Suicide Barriers up on bridges in fear of being sued by the families of suicide "victims". It's all a fucking joke.

Back on topic, I still agree that Blockbuster has been wrong and purposely deceitful with this whole "No Late Fees" silliness.

Of course, I do cop to being a heartless hard ass at times.

This is classic dumb-ass lack of research commentary, sorry Carl but it is.

This particular McDonalds had been notified on multiple occasions that their coffee was far too hot.

Second of all there should be a reasonable belief that spilling hot coffee on yourself does not result in second and third degree burns that need skin grafting.

I am so sick of the example being used for why "frivolous" lawsuits are bad. This was a very worthy lawsuit that has become an urban myth. It sickens me thinking of this woman's friends and family having a nation site this as frivolous. And shame on you for calling her an old bag. I have seen people suffer with 2nd and 3rd degree burns and it is horrendous. As far as I am concerned that particular McDonalds could never pay enough to equal this woman's pain and suffering.

Here's the deal personal responsibility is one thing, complaining about lawsuits is something else entirely. And frankly...where is your personal responsibility in finding out the details of this so-called lawsuit....seems to me that you have failed here.

Furthermore the way to reduce frivolous lawsuits is not to limit a citizen's right to sue...it is to remove lawyers from practicing a particular kind of law that they have used to continually bring frivolous lawsuits. This could be easily regulated by the bar. You do not take away the rights of the citizens, you take away the right of the middleman to exploit the system.

Sorry for the intensity but this is a piss-poor example and I hear it all the time.

Oh, quit bleading your heart all over me, will ya. I'm drowning here.

I believe Carl's main point is, today's society has become such that no one is willing to take responsibility for their own actions anymore. And it starts with what parents teach their kids. My 3-year-old son is already trying to blame others for something he clearly did right in front of us. And every time he does this, we tell him it is wrong to blame someone else for his mistake.

We were at a play area in the mall a few weeks back, and it's supposed to be for kids under 42" tall--well, there are kids taller than me running around in the area, climbing on walls and jumping off, all the while there are kids as young as 18 months old trying to play around. And there are also signs that say, if you leave your kid here unattended, security will be called. Of course, none of these kids' parents were around. How do I know? Because one of them literally ran over my son in the process of acting like an idiot. And I called him out on it as he just kept running. He stopped, looked at me, and you know what the first thing he did was? He turned and pointed to his buddy that was chasing him, trying to say it was his fault. I told him to stop trying to blame someone else for his own stupidity, and that he shouldn't even have been there in the first place. I also tried to drag out my yelling at him, because I was waiting for his parent(s) to appear. But...it never happened. Within 15 minutes, security had arrived and made him and the 3 other kids with him leave. Call me an old cranky bastard, but you run over my kid, and you're lucky if I don't break your happy ass in two.

Absolutely right... there are MUCH better examples.

You should sue your school.

Also, I love how people think they have all the answers with a five word summation of a court case. The legal system is built to weed out truly frivolous suits, and just because a suit sounds frivolous to you doesn't mean you know the real details.

You should have read the link I posted Carl, don't say I didn't warn you :-)

I believe that the whole frivolous lawsuit thing can be summed up with a quote from Rising Sun; "In America, it's all about who messed up, who's fault it is, and who's head's going to roll. In Japan, it's about what's messed up, what's wrong, and how to fix it." I know, it's an old novel, and the America/Japan comparison doesn't really work anymore. But the point is that America is more concerned with who's fault a problem is than how to fix that problem. That's why I said that this lawsuit may be frivolous. But the fact remains that Blockbuster is doing something deceitful.

http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

The lazy man's way of knowing he is wrong but blaming the liberals so he doesn't have to admit that he is wrong?

Well...can't say I blame you it seems to work in our society as a whole. See more blood dripping...I am not going to apologize for championing the rights of the little people.

You must have missed where I agreed that McDonald's was at fault and that this particular case was not truly "frivolous"... I only bemoan the fact that people make it sound as if the employees (and McDonald's itself) purposely injured the lady or something. Were they negligent? Yes. Was the coffee ridiculously too hot? Yes. Was the lawsuit warranted? Yes. Was it completely and totally the fault of McDonald's and their employees, absolving the woman of ANY responsibility whatsoever? NO.

THAT is my only bone of contention. I don't even care that she won the case and was awarded a large settlement (which she'll probably never get, unfortunately). Good for her and fuck McDonald's.

You're Jenny's hippie boyfriend from "Forrest Gump", aren't you?

What your kid is doing is developmentally appropriate.

As to lawsuits who are we protecting by not allowing lawsuits? Corporations and governments...that's who. Call me old fashioned but democracy is messy...but a good functioning democracy protects the rights of even their weakest citizens...and part of this protection can come in the form of lawsuits. Sorry to say we citizens by-in-large receive protection from corporations and government due to lawsuits, any attempt to limit the right of a citizen to sue is an attempt to limit individual rights, the classic slippery slope.

Indeed the current rhetoric today is the smoke and mirrors attempt to gain more control of individual citizens in the guise of protecting them. Everyday our rights and privacy are being further eroded by such diversions, by blaming many ills of the nation on the legal system.