Blockbuster sued for late fee claim

[hudsonf]

"The Soprano's"; now thats Jersey at it's best. One of the biggest problems is that too many people have the "I'm stupid but it's your fault" mentality. People don't take time to think or check things out, then they want to sue when something goes wrong. I don't know why the lawsuit but my guess is somebody didn't read the terms and think they got screwed.

[winifreid]

I agree that this is a minor infraction to the "truth in advertising” (as if that were possible) law. But I do think the intention if BB is to get people to keep the movies so that they can charge them as a sale when the customer was not really intending on buying the film. To say that you can return it afterwards and be charged a nominal fee does not really mean "No more late fees". You still have to pay if you bring it back a movie a month late. Yes, they do tell you this, but it isn't as conspicuous as the main line "No more late fees". Can you imagine if speed limit signs had caveats in small print indicating that the limit was 10 mph less on Tuesdays so PDs could rack up some fines? Lets keep in mind that not everyone is on an even playing field. Some people can't read well, others just don't understand things very well and are easily confused. My father, who is 81, recently sent in one of those checks for a "free" $2 that used to come in credit card statements. He got a big surprise 2 months later when his card was billed $80 for, of all things, a consumer protection policy. It turns out by signing the $2 check, he was agreeing to enroll in the policy. How many people read the fine print on the back of checks? This was clearly formulated to trick people. (I think they have since stopped) But to say that there were many people who realized what signing meant, and therefore everyone should have, is rather mean spirited. I suspect the suit in NJ will lead to some clarification of BB advertising, which is a good thing in the end.

[ebenton]

Being stupid does not automatically mean that you have a case when you want to sue somebody.

[AlecWest]

State attorneys general do not start legal actions on a whim. A February 11th article in the LA Times says that BB's marketing policy has come under the scrutiny of several state attorneys general (not to mention the U.S. Attorney General's office). This is a sign that there may be more to this than meets the eye. All we see is what the media tells us. But, there may be other things we don't see ... yet. Perhaps there's an internal memo indicating an "intent" to deceive on BB's part in the AG's possession.

In any case, it will be interesting to see this situation unfold. My guess is, that to avoid a PR nightmare, Blockbuster will either modify or abandon their marketing campaign of NO MORE LATE FEES. "No" usually means "no" in a rape case ... and it could be interpreted the same way in a situation where a consumer's wallet (as opposed to a woman) is the rape victim.

[do9999]

[quote="BSpielbauer"]

They do not mention these "nominal restocking fees" or "forced purchases" or any "fees" or "exceptions" or "disclaimers" of any sort anywhere in the advertisements which are now running nationally on network television or on both network and regional radio.

Hmmm, the ads I have seen do indicate that there are other charges that may apply.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is completely wrong what they are doing and am glad to read someone is taking them to court.

I also feel that the disclaimer is bogus. I have a 52" tv and can barely read it due to small printing. I also had to pause the picture so that I could read it before it disappeared.

Since I was dubious and curious though, I did venture to the web site to read about the details. Not something that everyone would do I am sure.

I have never rented from BB and never plan to.

[handyguy]

BB was sued before cuz they couldn't figure out just what a 'day', night or evening was, as in '2 evening rental'

[BJ_M]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3670358/

[MOVIEGEEK]

As William Shakespeare wrote:"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".*




*adam excluded

[DereX888]

As William Shakespeare wrote:"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".*




*adam excluded

...and their families, so no one else will ever think of becoming one

[BJ_M]

that comment is over the edge of decency ,,how would you feel if you were adam's family reading that ?

[AlecWest]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3670358/

From the article:

Ashley Nordan of Charlotte, North Carolina isn't very grateful for a lawsuit filed on behalf of her and millions of other customers of Blockbuster Video.

Well, we know how Ashley Nordan feels. I wonder if the "millions of other customers" feel the same way. As far as I know, there's no move afoot to recall the attorney general of North Carolina. BTW, it appears that NY may be about to join the class-action.

[BJ_M]

she was not grateful because she got $7 and the lawyers got 9.5 MILLION $ ......

which btw -- was paid by an insurance consortium who recouped their loses -- you guessed it - raised their rates to everyone ...

[DereX888]

that comment is over the edge of decency ,,how would you feel if you were adam's family reading that ?

Adam and HIS family excluded ofcoz!
No need to twist my arm over this, I thought its obvious I meant all lawyers (and their families, yes) who dare to make suits like the one for lack of warning "hot!" on the cup of coffees in the past, or those who sue i.e. McD in the name of obese bastards recently... *That* is way below common decency levels rather... generally all the educated idiots representing uneducated idiots...

[DereX888]

she was not grateful because she got $7 and the lawyers got 9.5 MILLION $ ......

which btw -- was paid by an insurance consortium who recouped their loses -- you guessed it - raised their rates to everyone ...

Tell me again about Shakespeare and not killing the lawyers and their families? :P

[BJ_M]

suggestion of killing anyone's family is not funny in anyway ---
it is very offense and in any context it is out of place ..

anyway -- you have also Shakespeare's quote out of context also...

When Shakespeare wrote: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," he was speaking for cutthroats lusting for power; knowing lawyers' ability to reason would interfere with, and protect against, the imposition of abusive power. (King Henry VI) ... I other words he was defending lawyers... But this quote really has got twisted around because people never read King Henry VI or didnt understand it ... Thats OK -- i saw a while back that NBC also screwed up the meaning advertising a show....

Check with any decent english teacher or cliff notes or whatever they are called ..

[canadateck]

suggestion of killing anyone's family is not funny in anyway ---
it is very offense and in any context it is out of place ..

.

I agree ,My Uncle is a lawyer in quebec... so quote or no quote I think saying someting like this is very offensive.

Even Still, To say it about anyone is still offensive.

[DereX888]

LOL whats the matter with u guys! I have 2 lawyers in my family too, 1 in US and 1 in Canada, and I still say lawyers are the lowest form of scum on earth, and i won't change my opinion.
Just that there are few decent people who happened to be lawyers doesnt change the fact theyre all mostly scumbags.

[canadateck]

Yup your opinion.