Blockbuster sued over late fees
 

I knew this was going to happen. All this giant lettering, NO LATE FEES* was going to get them in touble sooner or later.



*not true

"Blockbuster boldly announced its 'No More Late Fees' policy, but has not told customers about the big fees they are charged if they keep videos or games for more than a week after they are due," the attorney general said in a statement.

Apparently BB charges a $1.25 "restocking fee" if you keep a title more than a week and the full retail price if you keep it more than 30 days. How is $1.25 a "big fee?"

Hmm, I managed to find out about the 'huge' 1.25 fee when i first went to the website and read the fine print. Suing over something that's plainly obvious if you read the contract is stupid.
Not to mention, BB makes a bunch of money over late fees; if they suddenly say, No late fees, most non-idiot consumers should think, Okay, what's the catch?
I'm not a BB shill or anything, but this lawsuit is stupid.
And neither the 1.25 fee, nor the retail price, is a 'late fee'.

re-stocking fee? shouldn't that come with the service? can I re-stock it for them? the money isn't the issue, but blockbuster employees couldn't get any less helpful as it is.

this lawsuit is great and anyone with half a brain saw it coming, except them. all they did was change the wording of late fee to re-stocking fee. re-stocking fee? it was all a scam to try to get people to have to buy the DVDs they rent.

plus the lawsuit also includes stores that didnt have the "no late fees" policy and didnt see fit to tell anyone. maybe the customers should read the fine print on "no late fees" though unless you actually go to the website i dont know how they could have. its not on the big signs or readable or explained in the commercials. but it certainly is not up to the customer to look into who owns the blockbuster they rent at to find out that they are different from the blockbuster on the commercial. any store not participating should have made it a point to have signs that say, we dont do this.

thumbs up on the lawsuit, it was scummy from the get-go.

They really don't make it clear just what the new terms are.

All they have plastered around the store is NO MORE LATE FEES, but don't go into any more detail than that. I actually had to ask them as I was walking out of the store.

Same opinion here. As soon as i heard the "No Late Fee" promotion, the first thing i thought was that there had to be something else to it. I think the lawsuit is silly, but it's Blockbuster's fault for pretty much using an intentionally misleading phrase. Naturally there are going to be people who automatically assume that "No Late Fees" means that they can keep the movie as long as they want without being charged.

What a joke...
 

Not to defend blockbuster -- okay I'm actually going to (never thought I'd say that in my lifetime!):

When I heard about this "no late fees" deal I too went to Blockbuster and read the fine print and I'm sorry but it's as close to no late fees as Blockbuster can do it. They have to make sure they eventually get the DVDs back, right? I believe (this is from memory so it could be off) you have like 7 days to keep the title PAST the day it was SUPPOSED TO BE DUE. After that they put a charge on your Blockbuster account for the full price of what they would have charged you to purchase the DVD. This would piss me off if they made you pay this, but all you have to do is eventually bring the DVD back and the charge comes off and then they hit you with the restocking/whatever fee it is -- which is apparently only HALF (at least) of what they would have charged you if you returned the DVD a day late under the old policy.

I've actually switched to BB from Netflix and find myself going to the Blockbuster B&M more often. With the 2 free rental coupons and no late fees (again as close as they can get) not to mention the huge store credit I have from trading in DVDs BB is now my rental store of choice. I used to hate them but there's not much for me to complain about anymore. I can return a DVD a week later than I'm supposed to and not pay any late fees. If I decide to keep a DVD beyond that the worst thing that will happen to me is I have to pay a fee that is less than half of what they used to charge for returning the DVD only one measly day late.

I'm sorry but "no late fees" is accurate enough for me folks. I agree BB was asking to be sued but only because our pathetic sue happy nation looks for any opportunity they can find to claim that they've been wronged... and of course require monetary reimbursement to ease their pain and suffering. Gimme a break.

I wish I was born stupid because it seems like idiots really seem to be benefitting financially from their inability to read the fine print...

Ummm. Blockbuster is full of crap. Do they charge that "restocking fee" regardless of when the movie or game is returned? No? Only when it's returned late? That's a late fee! I have no problem with them making this policy, but they are being VERY deceitful when they have huge banners that say NO MORE LATE FEES! Sure, it's not the same fees they used to charge, but they are still charging fees. If I open a store and have a banner that says NO LATE FEES*

*unless returned more than 2 days late

that's deceiving.

As the owner of a "anti-blockbuster" website, I thought the No Late Fees was a great idea, and even with the fine print was a decent deal for customers.

People are sue happy...

States need to balance their budgets better.

This is just another attempted cash-grab by a State against the 'big bad' corporations.

The restocking fee is only charged after you've 'bought' the movie, and it's been taken out of their inventory. Once you say, Oh yeah, this movie I kept for 1.5 months, and don't actually want, please take it back. Not much different from the restocking fees for video cameras at Best Buy. It's a disincentive.
The rental lasts up to two weeks. After that, it's turned into a purchase.

I agree that Blockbuster's new policy is a better deal for the consumer. But they should lose this lawsuit (or at least have to alter their signs). If you're going to advertise "NO MORE LATE FEES" then you better damn well not have any late fees. The "restocking" fee, as small as it is, is in fact a late fee. Blockbuster walked right into this one. Hopefully they can rectify the problem by changing their slogan.

Not for those of us who returned our movies on time. They raised their prices considerable higher. Enough that I don't and won't rent movies from there any more.

Really?

The four or five local Blockbuster stores I've been into since the change haven't raised their rental fees. As far as I know, all the ones I frequent are corporate (rather than franchise) stores.

I had to laugh at their slogan on my receipt tonight:

THE END OF LATE FEES
THE START OF MORE

:lol:

What are their fees now?

Can we combine here:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=410397

Looks like common sense went out the window, I say bring back the late fees where they are and hammer the hair splitters and muppets as hard as possiable.

Need a mod to thread merge

There was a time in the past when BBV was sued (and successfully) for their late fee policy. Remember when they used to charge PER DAY for your past due movie? I do, I used to work for them at that time. After ten days, it wrote the movie off to collections and you either returned the movie and payed the late fee or you didn't return the movie and got charged for it on top of the late fee.

As a result of the previous lawsuit, BBV changed their extended viewing policy to a per rental period policy, which I thought was more than fair. I mean, if I rent from Enterprise or some other rental place, and I keep the car or their product past due, I always get charged another rental period for that item, so why would BBV be any different. Of course, people cried foul anyway.

But here is the point I am trying to get to. Now in their terms and conditions of their membership, if you sign the membership, you agree NOT TO SUE BBV over their policies. Don't believe me? Go to your local BBV and look at the application. It reads:
The BBV membership appilication binds you to the Federal Arbitration Act as well (which I haven't read myself, but browsed at it online. Google it if you wish.)

So I think the NJ case and all the other cases just need to be thrown out of court. Members agreeed to sue them upon joining them, and if you didn't join them, then you have nothing to sue about.

New Jersey didn't sign any agreement with blockbuster to not sue it.

But wouldn't the DA be representing the renters who did sign memberships? Or are they independently going after BBV? And what are the details to the suit?

Im glad they are getting sued
 

I'm glad they are getting sued.

I love the no late fee policy, and i read the fine print, and understand how it works. i think its a great deal. imagine my surprise, when i took a movie one day late back to the only blockbuster in my town. (alamogordo, NM) all the employees were wearing bright yellow "NO MORE LATE FEES" t-shirts, they had a big banner hanging on the outside of the store...and i was charged late fees.

our store decided not to particpate in the no late fees program. so why are they advertising in my home town? through tv commercials, store promotions, and flyers sent to my home address with "NO MORE LATE FEES" written all over them. (my hometown store eventually took down all the banners, and the employees just refuse to wear the t-shirts, although they are encouraged to wear them...i asked)
this issue is being addressed in the lawsuit also. and I AM GLAD.

It would seem to me, though, that the store itself would be the guilty party in your case, rather than the corporation (I assume it's franchised stores that aren't participating, rather than corporate stores).

It's pretty standard to put "at participating stores" on such advertising since national advertising is going to reach customers in markets with non-participating franchises. The stores shouldn't have put up the banners or worn the shirts, for certain, but that's likely not the company's fault.