← Back to context

Comment by overfeed

2 days ago

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.

      3 replies →

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.