These sites are super scummy, but it does feel a little like the author is being willfully ignorant. I don't know why he didn't dispute the charge/request a chargeback.<p>Also, I went to the site, and here's what I saw:<p>First, you get a list of tickets to choose from. There is a small but clear "ea" under the price: <a href="https://i.imgur.com/erAV4W7.png" rel="nofollow">https://i.imgur.com/erAV4W7.png</a><p>Then, once you select "buy", the order summary clearly says "each" or "x4" every time the price is listed: <a href="https://i.imgur.com/58N6Fne.png" rel="nofollow">https://i.imgur.com/58N6Fne.png</a><p>Once you select a method of payment, the order summary looks like this: <a href="https://i.imgur.com/IFfvVwC.png" rel="nofollow">https://i.imgur.com/IFfvVwC.png</a><p>For the record, that says "total charge" in bold with the exact total amount you pay.<p>And before the place order button is: <a href="https://i.imgur.com/y2K4LrF.png" rel="nofollow">https://i.imgur.com/y2K4LrF.png</a><p>Unless that amount is somehow a lie, I'm not sure how this is misleading. It is very clear what the total, final charge is, it says it in multiple places, and it is consistent.
Dispute the charge with the credit card company based on predatory and deliberately misleading pricing information. Especially the lack of a "total amount" to be charged in their checkout workflow.<p>Just because the charge has gone through doesn't mean you are out of options with the credit card company. And, you won't be responsible for the disputed amount until the dispute has been resolved.
I don't understand the second part of the article. They decided to contest the charge with Visa, and had a very valid case for it. But then they saw that the seller had "submitted the charge" and Visa had "authorized it", so decided there was nothing they could do. What does that even mean? Of course you can contest a charge with the bank. The entire dispute process (required by law) exists for cases exactly like this. You can even do it online these days. Would definitely have been less effort than publishing an entire opinion piece about it.
He has a case with the card issuer. I'd suggest he get on the phone with the card company and ask for a 2nd level support or manager, then tell them to reverse the charge. He never responded YES to allow the charge. The reason for that type of check over SMS is due to an aggreement between the card issuer and the card user to prevent fraud.
The author could have disputed the charges. That doesn't lead to card cancellation. It leads to you getting your money back.<p>The author could also have CC'd the the various consumer protection services of Massachusetts.<p>He's either clueless about how banking works -- you can dispute bad deals, which is one of its best selling points relative to crypto -- or he actually thought $5K was an acceptable price to see James Taylor.
Clear and legible pricing is essential. I took a look at the event page in question [1]. The "ea." seems like something that can be overlooked, especially given the comparatively miniscule font size (8px versus 14px for the price) [2].<p>On the checkout page, the fact that it is per ticket is clearer, but there's no total/subtotal information. Looking at the "Terms Of Use And Privacy Policy" [4], there's also this fun line:<p>> You further understand and agree to pay service fees and delivery fees, which cover the costs of our operations, including the 100% buyer guarantee outlined below, the checkout security services, customer service, and the delivery of the tickets.<p>...and those fees are supposed to be shown during checkout. [5]<p>[1] <a href="https://www.ticketsales.com/james-taylor-tuesday-tickets-koussevitzky-music-shed-at-tanglewood/event/4278321" rel="nofollow">https://www.ticketsales.com/james-taylor-tuesday-tickets-kou...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://i.imgur.com/raPeRac.png" rel="nofollow">https://i.imgur.com/raPeRac.png</a><p>[3] <a href="https://i.imgur.com/975Sp0a.png" rel="nofollow">https://i.imgur.com/975Sp0a.png</a><p>[4] <a href="https://www.ticketsales.com/content/termsandprivacy.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.ticketsales.com/content/termsandprivacy.html</a><p>[5] <a href="https://help.ticketsales.com/support/solutions/articles/26000005967-will-any-additional-fees-be-applied-to-my-order-" rel="nofollow">https://help.ticketsales.com/support/solutions/articles/2600...</a>
Simon Winchester has written several great books that I've thoroughly enjoyed over the years. He's one of my favorite non-fiction authors.<p>A pair of books called The Atlantic and The Pacific; detailing the history of the ocean, people in it and around it.
The Perfectionists, about precision engineering
This is possibly not as bad as my experience, where Stubhub managed to fool me into thinking I was purchasing tickets from the venue, through some clever omission in their design.<p>I paid what turned out to be twice the face value and then when I figured out my mistake I called them angrily and they told me to get lost - no refunds.<p>The silver lining, if you can call it that, was that the tickets never were sent my the third-party seller, and I was refunded.<p>(I wound up driving 5 hours to stand in the lobby with my best sad puppy face until the house manager took pity on me and connected me with a comped no-show for face value.)
What predatory practice, particularly in the use of 'customer service' as a distraction flare, whilst the reseller used the time to expedite the payments processor. Should be illegal
The article makes no sense. Credit card company denied the charge and sent a text asking was that you, Yes or No. So then, the dots do not connect. All he had to do was text "No" in response. Instead, the family convenes and they decide to waste time with some chatbot on the original site and after to try to call humans at the credit card company ("cardistas")? Meanwhile, the Yes/No times out or something and charges go through. I don't get that; if they suspect it wasn't you, why wouldn't they give that reply all the time in the world? In all my experiences with Visa people being suspicious about activity, they freeze things until they get a hold of you.
It is true that the "ea" on ticketsales .com is smaller. I opened up the inspector and the price for a ticket is at 14px and the "ea" is at 8px and since the price is numerical while "ea" is lowercase the actual size difference seems even more drastic.
This is why I never respond to the texts. Plausible deniability.<p>I expect to see a TOTAL when hitting the purchase button. Even tax included.<p>Even when I get a hotel it shows me the actual total. Not the per night and then letting me multiply it.
<i>The same firm that had written ‘ea’ in near-invisible lettering had gleefully resubmitted the charge four further times and Visa, seeing no challenge from me, had given up the fight, assumed everything had been correct all along and authorized it.</i><p>Nightmarish. Great to know banking institution security barriers can be bypassed by simply spamming the blocked transaction.
Huh this is strange. Someone stole my card and tried multiple times and it stayed frauded.<p>This poor man is almost 80. It's pointless being like "Oh he shouldn't have done this or shouldn't have done that". He's old. People that age make a lot of mistakes.
Tl;dr the guy used a reseller website to buy four tickets, and was confused because the website never actually shows the total price including fees, only the per-ticket price before fees (I checked the website myself). I’m surprised this isn’t illegal.
Can’t tell how bad this is. I tried this site for these tickets and:<p>1. It’s pretty clear that the price per ticket is times the number of tickets, so I wouldn’t confuse a small amount per ticket for the TOTAL amount (it says $900 x 4 for four tickets), but<p>2. On the other hand, it would be better if it showed $3,600 for four tickets rather than “$900 x 4”, further<p>3. It doesn’t show fees, which seem to be substantial.<p>So yeah I don’t think I or my peers would have gotten caught in this trap, but also the ticket seller could/should have done better. But for the majority of the population of internet users, the surprise would have been at the extra $1k in fees and not the 4x ticket cost, so perhaps there’s an argument to be made that very old people should be restricted from using the internet (and our highways, roadways, etc. while we’re on the subject).
Hello if whoever that is didn't want to work with scummy ticket salesman he wouldn't have. Artists still have that kind of freedom. They do not care one bit.