Hacker News Reader

Comment by overfeed | Hacker News Reader

Let's retain a sense of proportion here; it was $3.

IMO it's attitudes like this that allow companies to continue ripping us all off for small amounts here and small amounts there. They know it's a small amount and most people won't push back, so they keep getting away with it. I suppose the only thing that stops me from hitting the nuclear button every time this happens is that there are a limited number of companies offering many categories of services, and I'd eventually have to charge back each of them and lose access to an entire industry composed entirely of shitty companies.

It would be much better if companies were inclined to amicably settle small dollar disputes rather than the default which seems to be to stonewall, and then ban when the customer uses the only tool they have to push back.

> IMO it's attitudes like this that allow companies to continue ripping us all off for small amounts here and small amounts there

I'm not asking for inaction, but for a response proportionate to the injury. If you spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for a service and they make what may be a $3 mistake, is it worth it to you to burn the service immediately?

Give me $3.

Are you going to provide me a useful service on a regular basis? You're really missing the point here if not.

The point is a bad one that should be missed. $3 isn't negligible. It isn't usually [0] worth spending $4 to recover, but it is nonetheless money. People can't just arbitrarily charge each other $3 for nothing.

[0] Game theory says sometimes it makes sense to be unreasonable.

It's not arbitrary. It's part of an ongoing relationship that is worth significantly more. That $3 came out of the trust they have with the company. But even though they're wary now, they still have some trust and want to use the service in the future.

Some random guy asking for $3 is a wildly different situation.

It's not about the $3, it's about the relationship.

A close analogy would be Netflix going up $2. If you keep paying that, it doesn't mean you think the money is negligible, and it doesn't mean you would give that money to someone else. And this holds whether Netflix got consent before the increase or scammed you out of it or anything in between; those things affect the decision but they don't change the fundamental nature of it.

The company is valuing the relationship at <$3. In practice there can be no "relationship" with an entity that wilfully steals $3; even in the commercial sense. It is strictly transactional and they're signalling that on any transaction they're willing to cheat you.

You can keep using them if you want. But history has no meaning when dealing with that sort of company.

Keeping an account in good standing, able to continue to purchase services, qualifies as a relationship here.

You can't view transactions in isolation because of the ban possibility.

Yes they're willing to cheat me. But I can limit that and I don't have many choices.

What's your Venmo?

At $3 your credit card company is just going to comp it to you and move on.

Many, Many millions have been made on pennies pulled from consumers daily.

$3 in a personal vacuum is one thing (and still adds up if you consider each service that could do this) $3 across 20% of users, lets say, globally, daily. Adds up.

Consumers have the ability to also contribute to and define how engagements with businesses look. If the government won't help us, we have to continue on our own.

Here are some examples:

Cramming schemes

TMobile - 2014 The FTC sued Tmobile alleging it knowingly kept 30–40% of fraudulent charges Tmobile settled for $90 million: at least $67.5M refunded to consumers, $18M to states/AGs, and $4.5M to the FCC

AT&T: $105 million for unauthorized premium SMS billing

Dodd‑Frank’s Durbin Amendment (2010): Congress required the Federal Reserve to cap debit‑card swipe (interchange) fees—typically a few cents—forcing banks to drop excessive micropayments to retailers. Because previously they were. And it was resulting in millions

State Attorneys General vs. Marriott (2021–2022) Hidden “resort fees” tacked onto hotel bills—$10–$35 per night. The Pennsylvania AG and coalition sued; Marriott settled and began disclosing mandatory fees upfront

Walmart: $45 million settlement no admission of guilt, but Walmart agreed to compensate shoppers who bought specified items from October 19, 2018, to January 19, 2024 for a max of $500 even though they knew they were overcharging customers

WholeFoods had a similar case, purposefully misweighing items

The list goes on and on.

The question on the table is: why pursue $3 for not getting the thing you ordered. Is it fair? Does it matter?

Based on continuous corporate fraud, I would say not calling it out will make it worse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com