Consumer affairs

Should Seniors Pay Off Their Mortgages? – TheStreet http://bit.ly/2eCpzYQ My reporting

Time to Plunge Into Oil Futures? – TheStreet http://bit.ly/2e7vjW4 My reporting

Never Pay ATM Fees Again – TheStreet http://bit.ly/2e4uJZ9 My reporting

Distressed Condos: Great Buys or Sucker Bets? – TheStreet http://bit.ly/2dWVJtd My reporting

 

By Robert McGarvey

 

There are important matters involving travel that our Senators and Representatives could be poking into – everything from sometimes deceptive resort fees through the absurdities of frequent flyer mileage programs — but, no, apparently they would rather do the bidding of the American Hotel and Lodging Association and sponsor legislation aimed at stopping the menace of online hotel booking scams.

That is, rogue sites pretending to be an actual hotel.

Say what? You are unfamiliar with this being much of an issue?

Likewise here.

Ditto other reporters.

And yet several senators have sponsored a bill to stop this purported menace and that is a companion to a House bill.  

Everybody insists this is not aimed at Expedia, Booking.com, et. al.  

The House bill says: “This bill amends the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) to prohibit a third party online hotel reservation seller (an online seller that is not affiliated with the person who owns the hotel or provides the hotel services or accommodations) from charging a consumer’s credit card, debit card, bank account, or other financial account for any good or service sold in an Internet transaction, unless the seller discloses all material terms of the transaction.

“Before the conclusion of the transaction, the seller must describe, and disclose the cost of, the offered good or service.

“The seller must also disclose, in a manner that is continuously visible to the consumer throughout the transaction process, the fact that it is not affiliated with the person who: (1) owns the hotel, or (2) provides the hotel services or accommodations.”

AHLA is adamant that “there is a mushrooming problem of ‘affiliates’ or rogue vendors using false advertising and other scams to trick consumers into thinking they are booking directly with the hotel.”

AHLA has in the past said bogus hotel bookings scam consumers for upwards of $200 million annually and that is indeed a bad thing. There are said to be instances of consumer credit card info stolen, and of sites that charge consumers for hotel bookings and don’t in fact have rooms to sell. All bad. All should be stopped.

But is this the stuff of legislation?

Why?

Pretty much everything cybercriminals may be doing on bogus hotel websites already is illegal under various federal and state laws.   New legislation is unnecessary.

Pretty much from the beginning of the web savvy companies have continually searched the web for bogus iterations of their sites – and they have gotten good at initiating takedown actions.

All those defensive actions are happening without the need for new federal law.

Why do hotels insist they need a special law that targets alleged counterfeit websites?

AHLA has said: “The legislation makes it easier for consumers to tell the difference between the actual hotel website and fraudulent ones masquerading as name brand sites. It requires third-party hotel booking websites to clearly disclose that they are not affiliated with the hotel for which the traveler is ultimately making the reservation.“

Wait, however. Assume I am a criminal who has erected a counterfeit hotel website with the intent of stealing credit card info and applying bogus charges.  Am I going to be bound by a law that insists I notify consumers I am not such and such legit hotel operator?

Uh, of course not.

Are you beginning to suspect that just maybe this bill is some kind of a Trojan horse in the hotel industry’s so far unsuccessful campaign against Online Travel Agencies and their commissions ranging up to 30%?

Hoteliers scream in continuous pain as they contemplate those OTA fees. Sometimes you honestly want to reach for ear plugs, the din can bet so loud.

Which is why you have to think that just maybe this legislation is a backhanded slap at the OTAs.

Even though the Senate legislation very specifically says: “Platforms offered by online travel agencies provide consumers with a valuable tool for comparative shopping for hotels and should not be mistaken for the unlawful third-party actors that commit such misappropriation.”

When was the last time you were booking at Expedia and in fact thought you were booking direct with Hyatt?

Right, that has never occurred, not to you, possibly not to anybody.  

I never thought I’d express support for more Congressional gridlock but in this case I am. We just don’t need this law.

Now, if Congress wanted to attack resort fees – legislation in fact championed by Senator Claire McCaskill — count me as a supporter.

But as for this superfluous scam website bill, nah, not so much.

 

What to Do When Your Social Security Number Is Stolen – TheStreet http://bit.ly/2dsnLNe My reporting

Will Robo Asset Allocation Increasingly Shape Your Retirement? – TheStreet http://bit.ly/2d4MEDl My reporting

Seniors Need Vaccinations – But Many Aren’t Getting Them – TheStreet http://bit.ly/2dlYPH7 My reporting

 

By Robert McGarvey

 

Many hospitality purveyors want to stifle your right to free speech – especially when you are talking on TripAdvisor and Yelp.

That’s why now it is more important than ever that we assert our right to express opinions about the hotels where we stay, the restaurants where we eat and, if we like, the many travel related vendors we encounter on every trip, from airport shops to limo services.

Those reviews when good help the vendors. When bad,they hurt – and some vendors are hurting back, such as Prestigious Pets in Dallas which sued because a customer for its pet sitting services dissed their service afterwards.  

That company claimed the one-star review caused “irreparable and continued… libelous and slanderous harm” and it sued.

In California, meantime, Hassell Law Group is suing Yelp because a client put up a negative review that the law firm deemed defamatory. Hassell won in Superior Court, it won on appeal, and the matter is now before the California Supreme Court where a galaxy of tech businesses – from Facebook to Microsoft – signed a letter that said the lower court ruling “radically departs from a large, unanimous and settled body of federal and state court precedent” which could “silence a vast quantity of protected and important speech.”

A long accepted principle of the Internet is that the host – Yelp in this case – is not responsible for the content of user posts.  That principle has allowed user generated content sites to flourish and that begat TripAdvisor, Yelp, etc.

Out of them arose much more honest and unbiased reviews – by real people – of hotels and restaurants in particular.

I have long said that where there is a critical mass of reviews – perhaps 50 minimum, maybe 100 – there almost certainly is truth to be found in the totality and that truth, generally, is a lot more honest than what has historically appeared in many publications under the bylines of paid writers.

I am not saying the writers are bribed. Nope.  I am saying I will generally trust 100 citizens who have paid for a room or a meal out of their own pockets more than I will trust a reviewer who may well have been comped.  

Pete Wells at the New York Times is a glorious exception. I trust him, a lot, and would spend my own money on his say so.

But he is an outlier.

In most cases, give me the masses and I’ll let their opinions lead me.

Do I believe all the reviews are true? Nope. Some are written by cranks. Some by would-be extortionists. Some by devious competitors.  Academics who have investigated agree that a significant percentage of Yelp reviews probably are fake.

Similar is probably true at TripAdvisor.

That’s why I have long recommended that readers throw out the really positive reviews, along with the really negative.  Focus in on the middle ground and very probably a kind of truth will emerge in my experience.

And I believe that truth has emerged as a valuable tool in the traveler’s toolset. For us, it can save us money and also – perhaps more importantly – grief and bad times.

Some businesses disagree and the wily ones are inserting a non disparagement clause in their contracts (and who reads a contract with a pet sitter anyway?) – but now Congressional legislation is taking a hard look at those gambits. A bill – co-sponsored by Joe Kennedy in the House – would ban contracts that prohibit negative reviews. That legislation has passed in the House.

Similar legislation last year passed in the Senate.

The bills have to be reconciled, then win approval again in both houses, then go to the President.

“A lot of Americans, particularly in my generation, use those reviews,” millennial Rep. Joe Kennedy, D-Mass told AP. “You look at good reviews and you look at bad reviews and both of those are very important.”

It’s not just the young who swear by reviews. I know plenty of seniors who won’t stay at a hotel before reading TripAdvisor.

Smart.

That’s why it’s my recommendation that you contact your representatives and Senators and urge they help enact this important consumer protection legislation.

While you’re at it, remind the politicians that free speech has been integral to the rise of the Web.

Suing because of a review perceived to be bad – hurtful – just is overkill.

The antidote to a bad review is easy. Get a lot of good ones. Earn them.  If I read 20 reviews that say a hotel is a great bargain and the rooms are spotless – then one that says the place is a dump, which do you think I believe?

Right.

Give consumers some credit for a little intelligence — then deliver great service and you will be rewarded.  It’s that easy.

 

 

Trump vs Clinton: Who’s Better on Senior Issues? – TheStreet http://bit.ly/2d9liH9 My reporting