If a private individual did the things set out here they'd be criminally liable. When a company executive orders employees to do these things, they're not facing any criminal complaint at all (any of them). See also Wells Fargo multiple thefts (both fraudulent accounts with fees, and literally entire homes/all possessions).
It is pretty evident that many laws are constructed (e.g. CFAA) wherein there's one rule for individuals and a completely different rule for executives/companies.
I understand that the FTC themselves cannot jail people. I don't understand why the justice department cannot.
In regard to financial institutions getting away with crime, a former SEC commissioner became exasperated that this had become US government policy by 2015:
“the latest series of actions has effectively rendered criminal convictions of financial institutions largely symbolic.”
I wonder if a general purpose legal framework of applying the same punishment to different types of entities is possible.
That way most laws could be worded in a way that applies to private individuals and all types of companies the same way, but then the actual punishment would be applied differently.
Specifically, when a company breaks the law, the legal framework would explain the way the responsibility should be shared between the legal entity and the private individuals involved in breaking the law.
I would also trot out ENRON as another example, on a much larger scale. The only person in the entire fiasco that actually did serious jail time was Jeffrey Skilling who was sentenced to 14 years and was released in 2019.
If corps are people, maybe they should receive jail sentences as such - and then their executives & beneficial owners can carry them out based on liability. A CEO that takes full control and makes a one-man-shop would therefore be fully liable for any sentence received, and can only avoid this be sharing control.
Thanks Obama for this. He went full on corporate... and of course Trump and Biden are the same.
In both Clinton and Bush eras (both Bushes), there was more pushback on some of these behaviors.
> First, according to the FTC, MoviePass’s operators invalidated subscriber passwords while falsely claiming to have detected “suspicious activity or potential fraud” on the accounts. MoviePass's operators did this even though some of its own executives raised questions about the scheme, according to the complaint.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the only reason the FTC was able to establish intent was because someone complained via email or text.
I try not to think about how much illegal activity like this happens all the time that is not prosecutable just because everyone with a modicum of morals was smart enough not to say anything on record.
I thought I was just terrible with using my password manager….
This happened to me at least a couple times back in 2016 when I was seeing 2+ movies with MoviePass. I would get to the movie theater and all of a sudden be locked out. I would need to reset my password standing on the curb waiting to get a damn email over 500kbps LTE.
Good to know it wasn’t my fault and that the public in general is now aware of this behavior.
>“MoviePass and its executives went to great lengths to deny consumers access to the service they paid for while also failing to secure their personal information,”
I believe the first blackout was during the release of 'It'.
Of course they never called it a blackout... they just always seemed to experience technical issues... and always on Friday or Saturday... on always on a Friday or Saturday when a popular movie was being released. What a coincidence!
Matt Levine's summary in his current newsletter is this:
"So at some point the company looked for ways to make this insane business model work, and it found one. It’s pretty simple: What if MoviePass collected your $10 each month and then, when you asked it for movie tickets, it ignored you? Then it could keep collecting your $10 a month without spending money on tickets. Eventually you’d get annoyed by not getting what you paid for, and you’d try to cancel your membership and get your money back, but MoviePass could ignore that too and keep collecting the $10. Giving people unlimited movie tickets for $10 a month is a good way to get rapid customer growth; telling people you’ll give them unlimited movie tickets for $10 a month, but not actually doing it, is a way to pivot to profitability."
And the way they ignored you was even worse - changing the passwords on their highest volume users.
Anyway, it's a great read. Subscribe, it is a fantastic free newsletter. Past awesome coverage included the RobinHood stock hijinks. (Bloomberg's Money Stuff newsletter, sub here: https://www.bloomberg.com/account/newsletters/money-stuff)
But if that where the case, they could just recover their passwords? From the sound of the "suspicious activity" line, it seems they may have been blocked?
I owe a debt of gratitude to MoviePass. Their shenanigans led me to learn about virtual credit cards (privacy.com in my case). I'll never be surprise billed by a subscription service again.
Unfortunately, privacy.com is only available in the US. I had been looking for an alternative for quite some time, but recently I stumbled onto the fact that Wise (formerly TrasferWise) will give you a seemingly unlimited amount of virtual cards if you open an account with them.
As far as I can tell this isn't documented on their website, but I can definitely get new cards on demand and disable them as necessary. In fact, their website still mostly references MasterCard, however I have received a physical Visa card and the virtual cards are all Visa as well.
This isn't as sophisticated an offering as privacy.com because you can't set a fixed limit per card, but it's a lot better than nothing.
Unpopular opinion, but MoviePass could have survived a lot longer if they had more funding. I think there could have been a real opportunity with establishing themselves the main funnel to getting consumers to physical theaters. They couldn't hold on long enough to see what could be possible with such a moat.
MoviePass could have survived longer if they had more money, and a different business model. The problem is they were letting you go to movies at AMC and Cinemark for less than they bought the tickets, and both AMC and Cinemark said they wouldn't negotiate lower prices for them.
They could have had a small but cult business contracting with smaller theater chains, but they didn't.
They could have also bought tickets in bulk, and sold them through the app, but they didn't.
They could have reserved tickets at premiers and sold them at a markup, but they didn't.
They could have done a LOT of things to make money, but they didn't.
I say this as a onetime holder of more than 1% of publicly available shares. And I think at the time, one of the largest non-institutional shareholders.
Sure, but any business can survive indefinitely if they're given unlimited funding with no expectation of returns.
In your opinion, what's the point of being the main funnel to theaters if you're losing money hand over fist to do so? What was the plan for profitability? Was the goal to somehow strong arm movie theaters into discounted pricing? Why would theaters agree to that when there's no benefit for them to do so, they're the ones with the actual product and it's irrelevant to them if MoviePass survives?
The only way their business model can work is if the majority of customers sign up and never use it, which is a very weird thing for a business to depend on, IMO.
They could never survive -- their customer demand came from selling $10 movie tickets for $9 -- funded entirely by investor burn.
A sustainable business is one where you sell cinema tickets for $11 having bought them for $10 with the customer choosing you because you've added more than $1 in value for them.
It's a car racing down a hill. The acceleration looks exponential but it's just going to crash.
The company was a classic pump-and-dump; it was never supposed to last this long. Somewhere along the line some other, US-based conmen ("serial entrepreneurs") got involved, probably holding the bag for the founders who got their stock profits and bailed.
I think their main mistake was antagonizing the big theater chains. They should've had their hand outstretched to the chains, consistently, from the very beginning.
The (probably smaller) chains that play ball and negotiate selling cheaper tickets to moviepass get rewarded with more foot traffic, the chains that don't play ball get punished in small ways.
By gently and gradually steering traffic away from AMC, they would've put themselves in a much better position for negotiation.
Weird. I was using MoviePass right at the end and they didn’t need to change my password, they just limited what movie and time I could use my card so much it stopped being worth the trouble.
I guess they could have changed my password to keep me from canceling…
Classic tactic, similar to insurance companies who advertise great service but throw every caveat in the book at you when you actually file a claim, such that you can’t get to use, you know, what you actually paid for…
okay, but like ... don't we sign away any right to care in the T&C/EULA of services? or like when you go to a baseball game, this ticket can be revoked at any time for any or no reason.
like, it's their company and service, they can do what they want with their data. why is the FTC getting involved here?
[+] [-] Someone1234|4 years ago|reply
It is pretty evident that many laws are constructed (e.g. CFAA) wherein there's one rule for individuals and a completely different rule for executives/companies.
I understand that the FTC themselves cannot jail people. I don't understand why the justice department cannot.
[+] [-] leephillips|4 years ago|reply
“the latest series of actions has effectively rendered criminal convictions of financial institutions largely symbolic.”
https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/stein-waivers-granted-dis...
[+] [-] cobrabyte|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulpauper|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] legitster|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kinrany|4 years ago|reply
That way most laws could be worded in a way that applies to private individuals and all types of companies the same way, but then the actual punishment would be applied differently.
Specifically, when a company breaks the law, the legal framework would explain the way the responsibility should be shared between the legal entity and the private individuals involved in breaking the law.
[+] [-] papito|4 years ago|reply
* until a crime is committed
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] at-fates-hands|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Chris2048|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] makotech222|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ardit33|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] legitster|4 years ago|reply
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the only reason the FTC was able to establish intent was because someone complained via email or text.
I try not to think about how much illegal activity like this happens all the time that is not prosecutable just because everyone with a modicum of morals was smart enough not to say anything on record.
[+] [-] DrBenCarson|4 years ago|reply
This happened to me at least a couple times back in 2016 when I was seeing 2+ movies with MoviePass. I would get to the movie theater and all of a sudden be locked out. I would need to reset my password standing on the curb waiting to get a damn email over 500kbps LTE.
Good to know it wasn’t my fault and that the public in general is now aware of this behavior.
[+] [-] totesraunch|4 years ago|reply
Isn't this how things are supposed to be from the onset? That'll teach 'em!
[+] [-] jrockway|4 years ago|reply
> violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $43,792
Oh. I think it would actually be more punitive to literally slap them on the wrist.
[+] [-] lacraig2|4 years ago|reply
Near the end there so many people were cancelling that if you used a credit card they would, without your consent or interaction, start your service up again. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/559352/moviepass-reinsta...
[+] [-] lotsofpulp|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diogenesjunior|4 years ago|reply
As expected.
[+] [-] justapassenger|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forgotmysn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xbadcafebee|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Leary|4 years ago|reply
Canceled the month they started to have blackouts.
Great deal, would do again if any VC wants to try again for the goodness of the movie industry.
[+] [-] Gunax|4 years ago|reply
Of course they never called it a blackout... they just always seemed to experience technical issues... and always on Friday or Saturday... on always on a Friday or Saturday when a popular movie was being released. What a coincidence!
[+] [-] oplav|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jedberg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cs702|4 years ago|reply
Step 1. Charge customers $10/month for unlimited passes to movie theaters
Step 2. Change passwords to prevent customers from getting their passes
Step 3. ???
--
[a] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts
[+] [-] kingaillas|4 years ago|reply
"So at some point the company looked for ways to make this insane business model work, and it found one. It’s pretty simple: What if MoviePass collected your $10 each month and then, when you asked it for movie tickets, it ignored you? Then it could keep collecting your $10 a month without spending money on tickets. Eventually you’d get annoyed by not getting what you paid for, and you’d try to cancel your membership and get your money back, but MoviePass could ignore that too and keep collecting the $10. Giving people unlimited movie tickets for $10 a month is a good way to get rapid customer growth; telling people you’ll give them unlimited movie tickets for $10 a month, but not actually doing it, is a way to pivot to profitability."
And the way they ignored you was even worse - changing the passwords on their highest volume users.
Anyway, it's a great read. Subscribe, it is a fantastic free newsletter. Past awesome coverage included the RobinHood stock hijinks. (Bloomberg's Money Stuff newsletter, sub here: https://www.bloomberg.com/account/newsletters/money-stuff)
[+] [-] Chris2048|4 years ago|reply
Also, I wonder how the corp avoided chargebacks
[+] [-] richardwhiuk|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdefore|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cu3PO42|4 years ago|reply
As far as I can tell this isn't documented on their website, but I can definitely get new cards on demand and disable them as necessary. In fact, their website still mostly references MasterCard, however I have received a physical Visa card and the virtual cards are all Visa as well.
This isn't as sophisticated an offering as privacy.com because you can't set a fixed limit per card, but it's a lot better than nothing.
[+] [-] arbitrage|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] JMTQp8lwXL|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jermaustin1|4 years ago|reply
They could have had a small but cult business contracting with smaller theater chains, but they didn't.
They could have also bought tickets in bulk, and sold them through the app, but they didn't.
They could have reserved tickets at premiers and sold them at a markup, but they didn't.
They could have done a LOT of things to make money, but they didn't.
I say this as a onetime holder of more than 1% of publicly available shares. And I think at the time, one of the largest non-institutional shareholders.
Lost a lot of money on wanting a dumb "title".
[+] [-] jlarocco|4 years ago|reply
In your opinion, what's the point of being the main funnel to theaters if you're losing money hand over fist to do so? What was the plan for profitability? Was the goal to somehow strong arm movie theaters into discounted pricing? Why would theaters agree to that when there's no benefit for them to do so, they're the ones with the actual product and it's irrelevant to them if MoviePass survives?
The only way their business model can work is if the majority of customers sign up and never use it, which is a very weird thing for a business to depend on, IMO.
[+] [-] s_dev|4 years ago|reply
A sustainable business is one where you sell cinema tickets for $11 having bought them for $10 with the customer choosing you because you've added more than $1 in value for them.
It's a car racing down a hill. The acceleration looks exponential but it's just going to crash.
[+] [-] Telemakhos|4 years ago|reply
https://www.businessinsider.com/moviepass-owner-emerged-from...
The company was a classic pump-and-dump; it was never supposed to last this long. Somewhere along the line some other, US-based conmen ("serial entrepreneurs") got involved, probably holding the bag for the founders who got their stock profits and bailed.
[+] [-] rrrrrrrrrrrryan|4 years ago|reply
The (probably smaller) chains that play ball and negotiate selling cheaper tickets to moviepass get rewarded with more foot traffic, the chains that don't play ball get punished in small ways.
By gently and gradually steering traffic away from AMC, they would've put themselves in a much better position for negotiation.
[+] [-] anticristi|4 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Netflix
[+] [-] dwighttk|4 years ago|reply
I guess they could have changed my password to keep me from canceling…
[+] [-] granshaw|4 years ago|reply
There has to be a term for this?
[+] [-] jermaustin1|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leephillips|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swiley|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bredren|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] question000|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arbitrage|4 years ago|reply
like, it's their company and service, they can do what they want with their data. why is the FTC getting involved here?
[+] [-] nullbyte|4 years ago|reply