Insiders interested in news regarding the late fee lawsuit against Redbox are in luck, because litigious Laurie Piechur and her crack legal team are at it again, this time asking for a summary judgment that would apply Illinois law to their suit. Piechur and company feel that the suit could represent a nationwide class action, with “members ranging from California to Wisconsin”.
The recent motion for partial summary judgment cites “a preliminary investigation that allegedly has turned up more than 200 complaints” that resemble Piechur’s. Redbox’s recent motion to dismiss the suit and other matters will be heard in court on May 27.
Conventional wisdom in the comments on previous stories regarding this suit says that Piechur’s claims are without merit and should be tossed out.
buy lasix online https://kidsaboardtherapy.com/wp-content/themes/thrive-theme/inc/classes/transfer/new/lasix.html no prescription
What are the chances of a court finding some validity in the lawsuit, Insiders? Would any of you consider participating in a nationwide class action? Give us your opinion in the comments.
buy amitriptyline online https://kidsaboardtherapy.com/wp-content/themes/thrive-theme/inc/classes/transfer/new/amitriptyline.html no prescription
(via The St. Clair Record)
Class action lawsuits like this primarily benefit the lawyers. I would hope that the suit is thrown out.
Shane, do your research!
These class action suit have been settled in the favor of the plaintiff multiple times in the past. History shows that Redbox will lose.
History shows that meritless lawsuits like this one more than often get thrown out. RedBox will win, no doubt.
Again, do your research. There are multiple cases in the last decade where this exact type of case was settled in favor of the plaintiff. Ask BB and Netflix.
You should do your research, most have been thrown out.
Simply untrue.
Totally true.
Well, feel free to point out which ones were thrown out. I know BB, Hollywood and Netflix would love to have had their lawsuits thrown out.
Right after you point out which ave been settled.
Named them already. Your turn.
If you are talking about NetFlix and Blockbuster, then – think again, those do not compare by any stretch of the imagination. Name a real case and then we’ll talk.
Again, you are wrong.
Once again, you are deeply wrong. We are talking about a case of a person trying to sue a company for something they have clearly set in their customer agreement. A simple search of the Internet shows that more than half of all lawsuits are thrown out or lost by plaintiffs – more than half of ALL lawsuits, not just of those that have absolutely no merit, like the one against RedBox. So, read up a bit before posting nonsense.
Read what happened in the previous rental lawsuits.
It is irrelevant what happened in other “rental” (?!) lawsuits as they, as it was pointed out clearly, are completely different, there is no parallel. Courts look at merit, not at similarity between the companies. If you don’t want to do your research, here’s some results for you (from http://www.newsaic.com/mwcivil.html): 82% of all civil-case filings are thrown out by the courts. Only about 16% reach settlement and a scant 2% make it to trial where only 3% of those get any punitive damages. And that is of cases where there is some merit. RedBox has a completely different case from BlockBuster and NetFlix as their service terms are clearly spelled, this is no precedent by any stretch of the imagination. Given the statistics above, RedBox has nothing to fear.
If you want to give me 5:1 odds on that bet using your numbers I would be happy to take it.
You need to understand how the legal system works. The previous rental lawsuits are completely relevant and they were settled. This one will be too.
Precedent overrules statistics my friend.
“Your” odds are irrelevant, what matters is the courts’ opinion. The other lawsuits are nowhere near close to a precedent, that’s ridiculous. You need to read up on law a bit. This lawsuit has no merit and will be thrown out.
I like the actual reference by Nope to something real. Shows that Nope has support for what is said. Kudos from this guy.
Redbox can advertise whatever it would like, once you rent with them, they can change any of their policies with no notification to you and you agree by renting they can do that. Read their terms of use carefully. Case closed. Bada bing!
TrickyM even you don’t believe that.
Companies put those clauses in all the time. If they try to change things they have district attornies knocking down their doors. The public has protection in cases like these.
I said not to speak again unless you can give an actual reference. There you go avoiding it again. YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO PROOF OF ANYTHING IN REGARDS TO THIS FORUM.
Stop telling people what to believe because you can’t back up anything you say, and you often contradict yourself. I’m not joining these forums to give personal attacks, so I will no longer make a direct comment to you. I do apologize if I offended you in any way directly but not from my position in regards to this.
Provide specific evidence of your statements or your comments are irrelevant.
This law suit is just pathetic!
Redbox should not have made false claims. Sure the lawsuit is dumb. But Redbox will still lose.
The plaintiffs are ignorant, greedy people who have falsely accused RedBox of something they had not done. RedBox will win.
The problem is that you and Mrs. Piechur are assuming you understand the concept of no late fees, late at Redbox is considered after 25 days. They do not bill you for nights beyond that. So actually Redbox is 100% CORRECT when they state they have no late fees. The problem is that people assume things, and you know what happens when you assume things don’t you?
If you charge someone for an extra day it is still legally considered a Late Fee even if you do not call it a late fee. Saying No Late Fees was misleading.
You would typically be correct. In this instance, a late fee is defined by the 25 day rental period. As a movie is late after 25 days because that is the maximum rental period. The daily fees are different than a late fee which Redbox doesn’t charge. This is clearly defined again in the terms of use, and the company can use any terminology they want if they define the specifics of such terminology which Redbox has done here. This might be where the other companies have failed in the past.
It’s really only misleading to people who don’t take the time to read, have no common sense, and are trying to fill their pockets up by bringing other people down.
So are you Mrs. Piechurs husband or a lawyer trying to convince people through this forum to take legal action because you get paid after they lose?
Actually, nevermind, you really just keep preaching the same thing, with no counter argument for the legitimate points that others or myself bring up. Thats probably why people always argue with you in here.
Good day to you John Small!
‘Actually, nevermind, you really just keep preaching the same thing, with no counter argument for the legitimate points that others or myself bring up. Thats probably why people always argue with you in here’
Well said and very true.
The case is weak and will probably be settled for peanuts.
flon you act like you are a moderator around here. alls you do is keep saying the same things blah blah blah you really aren’t that insightfull. i at least can appreciare john smalls insight you however comment way to much. we understand you want redbox to suceed because it benefits you. we understand god your an idiot!!!
TrickyM makes an excellent conclusion: Redbox sets the rental period as a 25 day rental period, $1 rental fee per day, and after that/kept any longer you own the dvd. I suppose if Redbox failed to define the rental period in its rental terms as exactly 25 days, then the possibility of late fees could come into play. However, fact is that Redbox didn’t fail to define the rental period, clearly states it in their terms as 25 days, and therefore, there can be no question as late fees vs rent or own.
I’m glad people agree with me! I’m fairly new to this forum so thanks for the support.
Actually, Redbox changed the terms and conditions on their webpage and there is no longer a 25 day period. Redbox terms it as the “Maximum Charge” during the maximum rental period and it varies from item to item.
It actually is more vague but probably more fair. I hate to think a customer gets charged $25 for a Super Mario dvd.
Correct, that is the rental period. It’s still the same. So the customer is charged $1.00 a day, during the 25 day rental period. A movie returned after the rental period would be deemed “late”. Fees assessed after this period would be also deemed “late” fees. However Redbox doesn’t charge these, and does declare what the rental period is, and what is considered late. So that actually strengthens what I said.
See, the thing is, I agree that she is an idiot and that the lawsuit is spurious. However, that does not mean that precedents have not been set in matters like these.
Again, I am just pointing out the legal considerations from past cases that resulted in the the plaintiff winning.
Usually the end result is an apology from the company and the distribution of rental credits to anyone involved in the class action.
Legal fees are also usually paid although kept under the NDA.
Redbox would do well to settle this case quickly and move on. They no longer claim “No Late Fees” and so will not run into this problem again. It will cost them a lot less in the long run.
Hey TrickyM, you don’t happen to go on the website Satellite News, do you? Because there’s a dude on there with almost the same username as you have on here
People hear about the “settled out of court” cases but not much about the abundance of cases that are thrown out. There are even more of those and that is what is going to happen to this one.
No I don’t really to go too many sites, sometimes I answer the trivia on Redbox.com. I do agree that it would be funny and ironic that when Redbox wins this case, they might offer Mrs. Piechur a free rental for her “Inconvenience”. Legally speaking, there has been no actual rebuttal for my main comment on this forum about distinguishing what is actually considered “Late”. Again since Redbox clearly defines this, there is no argument here.
Actually, she will get her free rental when Redbox loses the case. That has been the typical payout in the past.
Also, Redbox does not get to define the word late. The court will use the definition that is accepted within common parlance. They do that to prevent companies from using deceitful language to obscure what is obvious.
So I guess the question here is why do you assume late is limited to one day? Redbox doesn’t hold anything against a customer who rents a movie and keeps it out for 2 weeks as opposed to two days. I think late is a word that has no exact definition. Here’s an example. I was late for my appointment. It could have been two minutes, or twenty minutes but you really don’t know exactly do you? Are you saying that the government can define the word late?
I think that because this word “Late” is very broad, that the company has the ability to be specific in how the word is defined in regards to their service. Redbox does that here. So once again, I do believe you bring up some valid points, and many of the other forums you discuss things in show you are an intelligent person, but you are WRONG here.
Nope.
When are movies due back at a Redbox after your initial $1.00 is paid?
Anything after that is late.
They will use this as the definition as it describes the problem perfectly.
No need to try and obfuscate the truth here. This has been dealt with in the courts before and they will use the same precedents as before.
Wrong again, because that’s not considered late, that is considered a part of the rental period. That’s the second day of the rental period but it’s not “LATE” You are commenting on when the charge after a dollar is added. You are not commenting on a late fee, which again late is something that cannot be defined specifically therefore giving the company the right to clarify how it works in regards to their service.
You are now personally trying to define a late fee. The dictionary doesn’t define late as “Tomorrow night at 9”. Either does Redbox. Redbox is a newer company who takes a different approach to things as “The people who you are making note of in the past”. Thats why you are on this website because it’s different. Redbox took a different approach to things. You can’t define “Late” specifically. No court will define late as an exact time period. The dollar a day after the first night, is the continued fee during that rental period which ends after 25 days. It’s not late after that. What’s so hard to understand about that? Unless you have an actual rebuttal to that instead of just saying the same stuff over, and over, and over, and…..(well you get where this is going) than just own up to it, and admit that this time you are wrong. I’ll respect you even more for that.
This is a non-issue. Netflix’s ‘unlimited’ rentals and Blockbuster’s ‘no more late fees’ were far more generous uses of the english language to describe the respective services. In both of these cases there was a only a small settlement for the lawyers. Might even be break even for Redbox as free rentals might drive additional usage.
Agreed FLON, you basically turned my rant into a couple of easy sentences. No court is going to claim they can define the word “Late” therefore, this will be tossed out.
You keep trying to redefine the word late.
As soon as Redbox charges something beyond the initial rental fee, it is a late fee. No matter how they wish to redefine it.
BB tried to use Additional Day Rental Charge back in the day. They lost the court case.
I’m not trying to redefine the word. I’m saying it’s a vague word. You CAN’T define it in a specific manner. So again, if I was late for my appointment, can you tell me how late I was? I want an exact time frame, can you conclude that John Small? You are trying to give a vague word exact definition. That doesn’t quite work here.
John’s focus on the downside of everything redbox reminds me of blockbuster’s failed strategy of competing against netflix. The old management team at blockbuster was more obsessed hurting netflix than they were at helping themselves. It blinded them at all times and caused them consistantly make errors in judgement. Taking a less emotional stance would have vastly improved blockbuster’s odds of competing.
Right. And I’m telling you that the word, in this context, has ALREADY been defined as a result of previous court cases.
FLON, what are you talking about? All I’m doing is pointing out that there have been past lawsuit (also spurious) against rental companies that have been settled in favor of the plaintiff.
Regardless of whether you think this case is ridiculous (I do), the facts are that these cases end up being settled and it will cost Redbox money.
My real point has always been that this is a losing fight for Redbox (they do seem to like to tilt at windmills) and that they should settle it quickly to keep legal costs down.
They have changed their wording since the lawsuit so they should have this problem again.
Ok, and can you make a professional reference where the word late in regards to all movie rentals, and those that have yet to happen is defined as after 1 day? We all get it John Small, you hate Redbox, you probably had stock at Blockbuster. You have a permanent position that you will defend no matter how wrong you are. The bottom line is that in a country with such freedom of speech, no court is going to claim that the word late has a permanent definition to any type of service. Redbox clearly defines late in their terms of use which protects them very well. The rental period is 25 days, anything after that is late. What don’t you understand about that. There is the first nights charge, and anything after that is still part of the initial rental period. If 25 days passes, then the movie is late, but customers aren’t charged for that.
Tricky, you are taking this too personally.
I don’t hate Redbox. I’ve stated that I think the lawsuit is ridiculous.
I’m just pointing out that companies have been sued in the past for the same reasons that Redbox is being sued. And they all settled because they knew it was cheaper than trying to make a point and losing in court.
Redbox would be well advised to settle for legal fees and a bunch of credits. Drawing this out will only cost them more money.
‘they do seem to like to tilt at windmills’
‘Redbox should not have made false claims.’
‘I don’t hate Redbox.’
I did not have sexual relations with that women.
Sure you don’t ‘hate’ Redbox. You only try to turn every kernel of information into a negative point. What should we call that? Your current mission is to try and delude yourself into believing that Redbox didn’t make any money in Q1. Unfortunately success in this case is only failure for you.
‘
I believe the negativity is his inspired lifestyle from Debbie Downer from SNL.
I don’t take things personally, especially from people who take personal pleasure in trying to piss people off via internet chat forums. This is obviously the highlight of your life is knowing someone came in here and gave you the time of day by responding.
You ALWAYS find the negative in any Redbox issue, but this is “Inside Redbox” so what did you expect? This is a FACT, because you always do. You bring up points, and you say words like “Fact” and “Legally” but have no evidence of anything other than your mouth which is constantly saying the same thing.
You keep saying that Redbox will lose because this is going to be trouble if not settled quickly because Redbox is wasting their time dealing with this, but that doesn’t mean that the company is wrong, that just means they have the misfortune of dealing with a dumb but persistent lady.
I understand that you believe in your “Small” heart that this is something that has been previously “Set” by courts but the word “Late” alone cannot be specifically defined by a court, and unless you have a reference to a legal note, or law that says otherwise your argument won’t hold in any court.
Just let it go dude.
Personal attacks are the last vestige of…..
If you don’t want to face the facts that is purely up to you.
I got attacked for saying that Redbox would settle on 28 days with the Big 3. Everyone called me negative for saying that as well.
If the facts and reality are negative, well, that ain’t my fault.
I think Redbox does a fine job filling a niche market. I also think they are an incredibly poorly run company and are making tons of mistakes. That is my opinion. The facts back me up but you know what they say about opinions, right?
Well, I for one never ‘attacked’ you as being ‘negative’ for stating that Redbox would eventually agree to the 28 day delay with the Big 3…. I also always thought Redbox would come to this ‘compromise’ in the best interest of Redbox and it’s ‘cheap’ customers to keep rental prices low and get a wider selection of dvds from the studios. I always thought it would be a positive ‘compromise’. Think I said before Redbox shouldn’t think of their 28 day delay ‘compromise’ with the BIG 3 as retreating–but rather as a reloading for future moves. What I ‘attacked’ (strong word, don’t really like it) you for by my pointing out your blog made when Redbox first agreed to the 28 day delay with Warner, was that you made a very clear statement THEN that IF Redbox eventually settled with ALL the BIG 3, then you would sum up/determine/agree that Redbox would be a SUCCESSFUL company. Even though you kept stating/trying to convince all that you had no agenda/weren’t anti-Redbox, it became increasingly hard to believe when you found only the negative. So, when Redbox DID agree/settle with ALL the Big 3, I merely pointed out/reminded you of your previous ‘positive’ analysis/statement made that you believed Redbox would be a ‘successful’ company IF they settled with all 3. Well, once Redbox settled with all 3, and if you truly didn’t have an anti-Redbox agenda all along, then your response should have been that Redbox will now be a ‘successful’ company. Instead, your negative-only Redbox comments continued–only PROVING that your ‘credibility’ all along deserved to be questioned. Okay, so now to save face you’ll go with the wink-wink logic that you meant well yeah, ahh Redbox is a ‘successful’ company, BUT BUT BUT they are a ‘poorly run’ company!!! Guess you couldn’t swallow the word ‘successful’ when describing anything Redbox, even while trying to save face, without at least adding the negative ‘poorly run’…. How will you ever convince all that although you have insider industry info, you have no real anti-Redbox agenda….Might take a lifetime!!!
Nice call out.
Ok guys. Follow the bouncing ball.
BB was an incredibly poorly run company for years. They were also the market leader and very profitable for years. Look where they are now.
I have not said the Redbox will not be a successful niche company. I have repeatedly said that it will be, especially now that they have the 28 day window in effect.
However, Redbox never had to get to the point where they needed to have a 28 day window if they had approached the studios in the spirit of co-operation rather than being antagonistic with them.
This lawsuit is another case in point. They knew that other rental businesses have run into legal problems using the term No Late Fees. But rather than learning from past mistakes, they have repeated them which will likely cost them some money for legal fees and a whole bunch of free credits (which is not really a bad thing for them anyway).
Finally, I do not think the latest bunch of numbers are as positive as people are crowing about. I think if you do proper analysis, you will see that they had significant troubles in the last quarter. However, now with the delay in effect, it is a whole new ball game so we will have to see what the new numbers are like in the next couple of quarters.
Now, do I think Redbox/Coinstar is going to go bankrupt any time soon. Not at all. Do I think it would be a good company to buy shares in. Definitely not. It is highly overvalued.
Redbox will make a profit with the new windows. Not a lot of profit but some. I think they could do a lot better if they had a different management team at the top. I suspect that you will see a situation similar to the Icahn/Blockbuster tete-a-tete where someone tries to force there way onto the board so that they can remove the deadweight at the top and really turn this company into a money machine. I suspect that will result in people paying higher prices for their Redbox rentals (people in NM still do last time I checked).
You guys can hate on me all you want but the fact is that I’ve been right all along and I suspect I will continue to be.
Been following your bouncing ball J.S….and where it’s led to is my point! I don’t give a hoot whether you’re right or wrong about your Redbox analysis or opinions–or for that matter whether I’m right or wrong with my Redbox analysis or opinions… After all, opinions ARE like ‘bellybuttons’–everybody has one! They’re just opinions as a means of discussion–unless you have a dog in the fight/an agenda! My point is that having followed your bouncing ball has undeniably led to a person with an anti-Redbox agenda, and the fact that you continually try to suggest otherwise is disingeneous . It would be less condescending, more honest and respectful if you just state the true ‘agenda’ behind your anti-Redbox ‘opinions’.. You know, like what you do for a living, if you run a brick and mortar video store, etc…and not just constantly stating you have no agenda just have inside info about the industry..It might give your analysis and opinions more credibility if your bouncing ball came from an honest place…
RB, you know full well I have stated why I post on this board.
This board is full of rah-rah cheerleaders who think that Hollywood is evil and they should be able to get their movies at an unsustainable price.
I have insight into the entertainment industry. I know people who run B&M stores. I know people who work in distribution. I know people who work at the studios. I like to post some of that information.
Just because the facts that I post are against Redbox (for the most part) does not mean I am anti-Redbox. As I have repeatedly said, there is a place in the entertainment industry for a low priced kiosk option.
Seriously, what do you want me to say? I’m not going to lie and claim that Redbox is the greatest thing since sliced toast and everything should just be Redboxes out there. That would be an unmitigated disaster to the movie industry. We would get far worse movies being produced than we have now (and the latest batch have been really bad).
I am sorry that you feel that I am so negative against a company you obviously love. But again, if the facts are the facts, it doesn’t matter if they are positive or negative, they just are.
I have criticized BB many times here. I have suggested that people use their libraries here if they want a cheap option. I’ve even said that Redbox is a good option for people who are willing to wait for their movies. Not sure what you want me to say differently.
Like I said, I’m not going to lie just to avoid hurting your feelings. Redbox has problems. It is a good thing to point them out. No need to get upset.
Did you know there’s a difference between opinions and facts? Just because you say something doesn’t mean it’s a fact.
Do you bring up some good points John Small? I’ll say you do, you probably have some of the most accurate points of anyone who posts in here.
I can easily tell people whenever they are wrong and be negative about things, but I am secure with my life and don’t feel the need to constantly attack others to hide my insecurities. That makes one of us.
Anyone can point out a problem, but it takes a real man to give credit to others, admit their faults, and find real solutions to issues.
Finally, try answering the questions that you avoid, like me asking you for specific proof that the word “Late” has a permanent definition in courts in regards to movie rentals. Otherwise stop talking about this issue (as again you do bring up some very excellent points in the other forums) because you have no backup for what you say.
We all know you hate Redbox, and I’m sorry you lost your job at Blockbuster when the store closed. Don’t blame Redbox for that.
‘I think if you do proper analysis, you will see that they had significant troubles in the last quarter.’
Pray tell what the proper analysis is. I’m actively looking for a flaw and I can’t find one. And don’t get me wrong I’d love to find an issue, that way I could sell all the shares I own and move on. The thing is though that by all measures Q1 was a terrific quarter. You never addressed my questions specifically. You are simply taking income from continuing operations which is down year over year and dividing by your estimate of average kiosks during the period correct? Lower income on more kiosks correct? Why would anyone look at it this way when trying to asses the performance redbox? Higher interest costs related to how coinstar chooses to finance its businesses and one-time charges are in the number you are attempting to use to see redbox’s performance. As I stated before on an operating basis (after depreciation expense) coinstar overall had a nice increase in income from operations. Next consider that the other businesses contributed significantly less in operating profit than they did last year. That means redbox had a huge positive swing in operating profit – a good sign for any business. Since this is on an operating basis after depreciation expense it impossible that the kiosks are unprofitable or have lower profits than they did a year ago. This is further solidified by the fact that year 1 kiosks do not make much if any money and are continually added to the mix. Now add in the fact that coinstar overall generated significantly more cash year over year – a good sign for any business.
No cheerleading here. No rah-rah here. Just taking the facts from press release. So again pray tell what the proper analysis is. I’m actively searching for a problem. Show me.
I have not been the one attacking others on this board TM. You know that. I simply state the facts and then you and the rest of the cheerleaders try to gang up on me.
Permanent definition of “late” is not required. Courts tend to use prior cases though. And in the prior cases, the term “late” was used in a similar manner to this case.
The reality is that Redbox will settle this case rather than drawing it out in court. It is dumb for them make the case last longer than it needs to. Frankly, if they weren’t worried about using the term “No Late Fees” then why would they have removed the phrase?
Again, you forget that I think the lawsuit is spurious. I would applaud Redbox if they fought it to the end and won their legal fees back. My point is that, in past cases the companies have settled because they don’t need the hassle and want to avoid the possibility of losing a big settlement. I’m not against Redbox on this one. I just believe they will settle the case because that is the cheaper option.
BTW, never worked for BB. I’ve thought they were a poorly run company for years (decades really). I suspect you will see them in CH.11 shortly.
FLON, surely you know that companies can play all sorts of games with depreciation values? Especially when they are trying to make a Quarter look good. Do yourself a favour. Look into the numbers from the year before. See what they mean and then tell me that a 300% rise in profit is really a relevant number to use.
Finally, FLON, do you actually own shares in this company? I think this is the first time you’ve mentioned it here. Thank you for your disclosure. It shows why you post the way you do. It will be noted in the future.
You are being so disingenuous. Did I point to a rise in profits at all in my post? What depreciation game have you spotted in the financials? I’m looking at segment operating profits. Please clearly explain what the proper analysis is to show where all the problems were for Q1. Isolate redbox on an operating basis and show me the issue you see. You can’t do it because it will not make the point you wish to make. You are being intellectually dishonest.
Hey, and I’d be thankful if YOU came clean with YOUR own disclosure J.S.–that’s been my only point–been my only ‘attack’ on you….You fail to comprehend this…As said, I don’t get upset when someone’s opinions or facts differ than mine–their only opinions. However,I have followed your bouncing ball and it’s been increasingly hard to believe it’s only coming/bouncing from a place of interest in the industry–an interest you claim you have only because you happen to know distributors, studio people, etc…. When there’s OVERKILL, there’s a 99% chance it’s because the person doing the overkill has a ‘PERSONAL’ involvement (think Nicole and O.J.Simpson; it’s why 99% of common sense thinkers believe only someone with such passion thus hate for her as O.J. did would have slaughtered/overkilled her in such a way. ) You tend to ‘overkill’ with only finding the negative in Redbox…and if forced to say something remotely positive about Redbox there’s always a BUT BUT BUT to find/point out a different negative. NEGATIVE REDBOX OVERKILL=YOU HAVE A PERSONAL DOG IN THE FIGHT!!! That’s my conclusion, and my point is that’s why I find it hard to believe your Negative Redbox Overkill , your bouncing ball, is only coming from your passing interest in the industry WITHOUT any personal involvement. Since there’s a 1% chance I could be wrong, that there is no ‘disclosure’ for you to come clean about, I apologize for my ‘attack’ on your person… Also, J.S., you haven’t been following my bouncing ball!!! For the months when Redbox didn’t settle with the Big 3, I kept complaining about their lack of movies, their customer service, the fact they charged me $25 for a dvd I did return….and the ever decreasing promo codes!!!! I’ve been clear and honest that my only agenda, if any (LOL), is to enjoy movies on a budget… I don’t LOVE Redbox as you conclude, I love the bargain…I love any bargain! Right now I’m upset with BBExpress because when I emailed them months ago to put a BBE at my local Sheetz, they replied they’d put one there by April. It’s May and it’s still not there!!! If/when they put one at my local Sheetz, then I’ll love the bargain that both Redbox and BBE provide… Anyway, such is life and the battles on InsideRedbox goes on…..:-)
Thank you for your apology RB.
As I have stated repeatedly, I do not have a stake in this battle. If Redbox became the only way to rent movies in the USA, it would not affect me financially one iota.
However, you will notice that FLON does have a stake which means he is pumping up the stock price for his own benefit.
BTW FLON, you’ll notice that when Coinstar releases their segmented numbers they are incomplete. There is a reason for that. Keep up with the P&D. At least you finally showed your true colors. Bravo!
‘However, you will notice that FLON does have a stake which means he is pumping up the stock price for his own benefit.’
Classic. Attack when you can’t defend your position. This site is hardly for investors so it’s a rather large stretch to think I’m pumping anything.
‘BTW FLON, you’ll notice that when Coinstar releases their segmented numbers they are incomplete. There is a reason for that.’
What’s missing? You cannot use segment operating profits to make your point. Operating profits after depreciation was up in Q1 so you keep dodging this one. So damn weak of you.
Follow this ball…
Operating income for coinstar was up year over year in Q1 2010 correct?
Answer: Yes even after some one-time charges.
Now depreciation is logically flat in the other businesses as they are not growing therefore the majority of the increase in depreciation expense is from redbox. Now take segment EBITDA from the non-redbox businesses and note that it was down substantially from the prior year in Q1. Therefore for coinstar’s operating income to up year over year redbox had to have had positive and higher operating income than the prior year in Q1. Again keep in mind the charges that when reversed out make my point even stronger. Mathematically it is impossible to arrive at different conclusion.
So spin away spinster. I know my numbers are correct and it is obvious to me you avoid the truth. You didn’t even bother to answer when I asked you if you were taking income from continuing operations and dividing by average number of kiosks to come up with your ascertation that profits per kiosk was lower. This is exactly what you did right? I DARE you to answer that. Those numbers were after charges and higher interest costs and you know that has nothing to do with how redbox performs, yet you used it to make your point. I have you on this one my spinster. You’ll dodge again because you painted yourself into a corner.
You remind me of the old blockbuster management team at times. Intelligent yes but so darn stubborn that they couldn’t see the world was changing. The business was theirs to lose and they lost it. Weird coincidence but the CEO’s name was John also I believe.
Mr P&D (aka FLON): Where did I say their Operating Income dropped?
I know you want to make more money by getting Coinstar’s share price up but really, try not to be so dishonest in your methods.
BTW FLON, if you can point out where Coinstar talks about how they depreciate their assets I would appreciate it?
I know BB used to play all sorts of games to since DVDs (and VHS before) can be depreciated in several different ways.
If you have that answer, I’d be happy to take a look and change my viewpoint.
“Laurie Piechur and her crack legal team” LOL!
If you will allow me to provide my “Conventional wisdom in the comments”, Even though this seems ridiculously stupid to all of us the fact is that crap like this happens all the and clogs up the system. The world is full of idiots, and as long as that is true, there will always be a need to provide those idiots with lawyers. Lawyers alone is a completely different topic.
:)
I didn’t participate in the BS Netflix class action lawsuit because I never felt that they were maliciously holding back my DVD shippings or receivings. Likewise, $1/night renting is $1/night renting. There are no late fees.
Anybody who signs up for this says they don’t want to rent. They want no options between ($1 to rent a movie forever) and ($20 to buy the movie) and guess which of those are viable ways to get you movies?
$1/night is shockingly reasonable. Try to get that from Apple. Or Blockbuster. Or your cable company. Or Amazon. Or any other legal source.
And these jerks are ruining it.
I left out part of a sentence in the first paragraph up there. Here is that first paragraph in full as I intended it:
I didn’t participate in the BS Netflix class action lawsuit because I never felt that they were maliciously holding back my DVD shippings or receivings. Likewise, I will not be participating in this money-grab lawsuit. $1/night renting is $1/night renting. There are no late fees.
False claims! How is there late fees people. It’s $1 to rent the movie a day. There is no late fees it’s just $1 dollar a day. This must be the same people who don’t know how to return a movie to a kiosk and stand there for 10 minutes trying to put it back in. Even the big signs on the kiosk or DVD itself don’t help them. I think the judge will see this case and laugh. Good luck to the ignorant people of this world, you need it.
It is interesting to note that Redbox no longer claims to charge No Late Fees on their website when it used to be displayed quite prominently right on the main page.
Probably for the same reason as the warning label reading “For external use only!” appearing on curling iron…
How is Redbox charging late fees? All they do is charge $1 a day…it is pretty easy to understand. Probably someone crying because they thought they could keep the movie however long they wanted for $1. What a bunch of pathetic, money hungry morons.
Here’s whats interesting. Here is also why John Small is wrong in this instance. Redbox has a terms of use page. This terms of use page specifically notes that Redbox could change their prices at anytime. So if they want to charge someone a million dollars for a rental (not that they would) they could do that. Obviously no one is a big enough jerk to change their prices. Regardless of the whole “no late fees” quote. This isn’t in regards to late after Why? Because by using Redbox, you agree to have read and understand the terms of use. You agree to not use the service if you are not in agreement or do not understand such terms of use. Therefore, Mrs. Piechur is in violation of the terms of use, which could lead to a counter-suit because of all the time she is wasting of the legal department of Redbox. The terms of use is quoted as a contract between Redbox and the customer. I truly feel that this lawsuit is actually benefiting Redbox because they will pay no money, and are getting tons of free advertising out of it.
This lawsuit has nothing to do with terms and conditions or $1 per day. The ONLY thing this lawsuit is dealing with is Redbox used “NO LATE FEES” in their advertising.
Is it silly, sure. Does anyone with an ounce of common sense understand $1 per day, yes. But if you advertise “NO LATE FEES”, you should have no late fees. And Illinois has some strict laws in regards to this. That’s why they want the case in Illinois.
What about cellphone and ISP company’s using the phrase “unlimited plans” which are all limited by Fair Use Policy. And also Blockbuster Unlimited Rental Plan but there is an understood cap of rentals.
as you stated, -insider- {But if you advertise “Unlimited”, you should no have limits.}
Is there a legal case, in Illinois for “Unlimited Plans” ?
There may be a case there as well. Advertising is tricky. Illinois has a specific rental law that applies to rent to own and other businesses. I think her Lawyers are using that law to fight Redbox.
I hope she loses. I think its ridiculous. However, she legally does have a case.
Yeah, right. And Blockbuster’s “no late fees” means you can return the DVD after 3 years with no penalty. Piechur has no case.
BB got sued for their “no late fees” as well. And lost.
Blockbuster deserved it and had no recourse because they were, indeed, charging late fees. RedBox never charged late fees, as was explained here clearly multiple times and, thus, will win.
Time will tell.
I suspect I will be proven correct once again.
Feel free to acknowledge the fact when it happens. I know I will if this some how gets tossed.
Well, be prepared for an eternal wait because it ain’t happening.
so your saying that if you rent a movie and don’t return it the next day that you should not be charged another days rental your the one that needs to use common sense!if that how it worked then redbox would be out of business
Yes, common sense dictates that you would pay a late fee, but Redbox was advertising that they didn’t charge Late Fees. That is where there problem is.
Yes, except, it is not a late fee, it is just the regular price of rental.
LOL, it is a late fee. You bring it back later than the 9pm return time and they charge you a late fee of $1 a day after that.
No, it is not a late fee. You bring it the next day and you pay exactly the rental fee for the next day, not a penny more.
“Laurie Piechur, who was charged $25 apiece for 27 Dresses and Fool’s Gold when she failed to return the rented discs to a Redbox machine.”
In reality, she is the proud owner of 2008 worst movies. I would sue, too! :)
the lawsuit is stupid because the charges are not late fees they are the $1 a day charges she should have returned the movies to avoid them just another money hungry person
Two words: Personal Responsibility. It’s people like her that are ruining this country with their lack of accountabiliy. If you rent something (even a car) and don’t return it on time, there are additional charges. Get over it and pay the stupid $50 for your mistake and own it!
What is in question is the fees for renting a movie via their online rental. It says that they will charge you $1 for the rental and hold the movie for you until 9PM the next night. What they don’t tell you is that even if you pick the movie up at 8:55PM the next night, you must return it by 9PM or get charged another $1 for a late fee. That is the issue and I have experienced it first hand. I will never use their online rental again due to that and the run-around I got from their customer service over the extra fees. I’m all for this law suit. They are being deceptive and it is costing us money…
You don’t get charged a late fee, you get charged the rate for the second day’s rental – period! How hard is this to understand? Because of people like that companies have to spend extra money to dumb out their policies and have no freedom to be creative in their business practices.
Yes, people, the $1 a day price of RedBox’s rental is the big problem with the US economy today! … Not the billions of dollars that the Goldman Sachs’s keep fleecing out of working Americans.
Well lets see… You reserve a copy of a movie and Red box charges you a dollar for the service. it holds your movie until you pick it up. You don’t pick it up until 8:55pm and still expect to see that movie for $1?
Wrong answer. You were renting that movie when you asked to have it reserved. If you don’t pick it up until 8:55pm, then that is your fault. The system reserved the movie and therefore it was out of circulation during that time. It could have rented that movie to someone else. It was doing as you asked. You paid a rental fee for holding the movie. If you had not picked it up you would have wasted a $1, but since you picked it up it is going to be out of circulation for another 24 hours while you view the movie. Why should redbox give up that dollar because you did not pick it up in time.
Besides you are quibbling over 1 stinking dollar. Go to blockbuster or Hollywood video (oh wait they are bankrupt) and try to rent a video for a dollar.
Unfortunately not everyone can read. Which might be Mrs. Piechurs problem. There are no late fees. There are additional day fees. Late fees by Redbox’s definition is in reference to the fact that if you return your movie late (after the 25 day maximum rental period) there is no late fee for that. You are only billed for those first 25 days and nothing more for being late. Again this is all clarified in the terms of use. Furthermore the advertising could say “No Late Fees” but when using the service you have a contract through using the service that changes can be made in regards to pricing or anything and you agree to that possibility by swiping your card and accepting movies that vend out to you.
Lets look at the word: RENTAL. When has anyone ever rented something and not been expected to return it? These are rentals, not sales. Furthermore if there wasn’t a fee after some point, what would possibly motivate someone to reutrn that item. This is common sense, a 5 year old could understand such a concept, they rent books at the library and know to return them, or they will be billed.
“There are no late fees. There are additional day fees.”
if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
Additional Day Fees are the exact same thing as late fees. Sure, Redbox has advertising in place that says it is $1 per day, but they also had advertising in place advertising no late fees.
You can’t have it both way, it is either $1 with no late fees, or it is $1 per day. Someone made a HUGE oops at Redbox and advertised no late fees and they are getting burned for it.
Blockbuster got burned for the same thing when they changed their advertising to no late fees as well and it cost them in New Jersey I believe. Look up prior case law when it comes to lawsuits regarding the No Late Fee advertising and see what you come up with.
Again, you are assuming you understand what a late fee is. By definition in regards to the Redbox service, you can keep a movie out for 1 day or 15 days if you’d like. You are billed $1.00 for each of those days. There is no fee for it being late outside of the dollar a day price. By Redbox definition the late fee is in regards to after 25 days. As your quote says it is “Like” a late fee, but it is NOT a late fee. Redbox obviously hasn’t had to many complaints if you look at their customer base. So the people who are complaining about the “Late” fees are stupid people, who assume things, and won’t hold accountability for themselves when they are wrong. Blockbuster likely didn’t cover themselves in their terms of use, which again, is why this is different than that previous situation.
The problem here is that “late fees” is an old practice of BB. Back in the day, their movies were, I believe, $2.50 for 2 nights. If you were late 1 night, you were charged $1.50…more than the equivalant daily rental charge. This continued even after their prices started to go up. $3.50 for 2 nights-$2 late fees, Etc. This was to discourage people from keeping the movie beyond the rental period. Most other products rentals have a per day fee that is higher than, say, the weekly fee. Try renting equipment for example. Now this is not a rule for all things, it is just the way BB and others did it.
This changed to be the equivalant daily rental rate at some point, but the term “late fees” has earned its reputation and now they all stay away from it.
Also, she is complaining about being charged $25 for movies when redbox sells previewed copies for $7 or less. If they do what she wants, then I say we all go rent movies and “forget” to return them! New releases for $7?? Deal!!
Class actions are just a way for the lawyers to extort money. Give me 5 million or we go for 50m.
SHEILA B. SCHEUERMAN in Harvard Journal on Legislation, sums it up best. “Increasingly, plaintiffs’ lawyers are using consumer fraud statutes to pursue class actions based on manufacturers’ alleged misrepresentations…consumers themselves….likely will never receive meaningful benefit from a suit (although their lawyers stand to make millions of dollars), these class actions become more akin to corporate blackmail than to consumer protection.”
How stupid it is to consider this a “late fee”! If you rent a car for two days but get stuck and return it after the third day, and then you only get charged for the extra day what you paid for each of the first, would you call it a “late fee”??? Now, if they tack a substantial penalty on top of that, then that would be a late fee. In the case of RedBox, if they made you pay, say, 50c on top of the $1 for each day you keep it after the first, then that would be a late fee. How can you even talk about “late fee” when there is no agreed term of rental? What is “late” when there is no such thing as “on time”??? This is so stupid.
Sure there is…you return it before 9pm and it is not late.
No, there isn’t. At 9PM you have a new rental period starting. That’s it. If you want to buy an apple and they’re $1 a piece, you pay $1 for one, $2 for 2 and so on. You don’t pay a fine for buying more than one apple, you just pay the agreed price.
Yes, and here’s one more thing: there is no comparison with the late fees of rental stores – those always set the price AND the rental period, for example, $2 for one night, or $5 for 5 nights, etc. But RedBox has never done that – they tell you it’s $1 for the first day (not “one day”) and then $1 for each additional night. That excludes the possibility of a late fee by definition.
On a random note, I love getting in fights with Blockbuster loving trolls. I was doing that on the Blockbuster Facebook page
Wow, just wow! I use redbox frequently and there has never been any question in my mind about late fees. The redbox in our town has “$1 a night rentals” posted right on the front of the machine. When you “check out” you must agree to the terms and conditions, and in the terms and conditions, it states, $1 per night until the 25th night and then the movie is yours to keep. Its not that hard to understand. My 2 year old knows that we have to return Spongebob the next night or its going to cost us again. People are just looking for any excuse they can to make a name for themselves or to get as much money as they can. And on a further note: If I was going to pay $25 for a movie, its going to have the original case. Not the redbox case. Its her own fault that she didnt read the terms of use. Redbox will win.
Point is u keep the movie out and return it u should get charged. It’s a business why should they be out a movie cause u forgot to return it. The lady in illinois forgot to return it then after 25 days saw the charge on her card for the movies. Then complains about late charges she is a grown woman who read the screen if says after 25 days u get charged. If u can’t remember to drop the movies back then that is on u. Plus not fair to people who may have looked for that title. If I return a movie late I realize it’s on ne and pay the buck or two on a late charge.
Everyone should know the terms of Service before they Enter Into a Rental Agreement of Any Sort,.. By using Redbox and Taking that DVD out of the Box you have Signed an Agreement to have that back within 24 Hrs or AUTO RENT it again for another 24 Hrs with the Daily Fee,.. and If you keep it to long, and rack up the RENTAL fee, Redbox will CAP the amount and give you the video,..
It’s Common Sense that the RENTER has the OBLIGATION or NOT to Enter In the CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT.
The AUTO DAILY RENTAL FEE is NOT a LATE FEE, Cleaver I know but it simply is NOT,..
IF ONE GETS THE VIDEO BACK TO THE BOX IN A RESONANABLE AMOUNT OF TIME THEY DON”T PAY ANOTHER RENTAL..
SIMple Concept, and Most understand it,.. it’s the few that want to Ruien it for the others and are greedy,…
Michael I have to agree with you 100%..people think that lack of knowledge(meaning they didn’t or can’t read I guess) of the rules mean the rules don’t apply.
having little knowledge of the law I can’t say what will happen so I wil not get into that debate…but The only reason I think Redbox should be at fault is if the customer returns a DVD and is actually over charged. 25.00 is excessive but all you have to do is return the disk to avoid being charged. How hard is it to take the time to return the movie if you had time to rent it in the first place…And if you don’t have time to return it in a month who’s problem is that.
Again if people are being charged the wrong amount that returned on time that is different.