How is it that sneaky fees were ever legal? Surely the legal principle is very well established that the price shown is 'the price'? And that sneaky fees were already illegal?
I can't help but wonder whether a blind eye was turned, in order to then require new legislation that includes onerous clauses. Such as requiring photo id/verification etc, as others say. Ie that whatever this legislation is, it may be an open ended expansion of legal powers.
Legislation usually tries to catch up with technology. In the times when people paid cash at a ticket office and they would not have had hundreds of options many of the things mentioned would not have happened - life was slower, there were fewer options, reputation was more important.
Would it have been possible for legislation to change faster? Probably, but that's politics, deciding together what is the next things to solve while having different opinions and many things to solve.
It is not bad they try to fix it, am I personally sure this was the most important? Not sure. There are many horrible things out there when some group takes advantage of another one...
They are not hidden fees buried into a contract that you've signed. The term in the article is "dripped fees": the full price is disclosed step by step.
Ultimately the full price is shown before you enter into a contract and before you pay. You have no obligation to buy.
They are more of a misleading advertising practice to get your attention and further along the sale funnel.
It's a common question about new legislation that appears to overlap with existing. AIUI it helps regulators/police etc with charging, as the new legislation can require less burden of proof etc. Happy to be corrected
But there is of course plenty of other political motivation for legislation and I can see what you're saying.
The fees are still visible to you before you purchase; they are only visible at the last step. So you are giving consent. Nothing obviously illegal per se, just a poor experience. At least in the US, Biden was unable to anything about it. Whether it was lack of will or incompetence, he didn't achieve anything. At the local level, CA tried to pass some laws to similar effect, but they also didn't go anywhere and were ultimately watered down to create carve outs for the most profitable junk fees.
I can't help but wonder whether a blind eye was turned, in order to then require new legislation that includes onerous clauses. Such as requiring photo id/verification etc, as others say. Ie that whatever this legislation is, it may be an open ended expansion of legal powers.