Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Lee on Lifecycles and the Firm

    • Car accident claim lawyers on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Andrew MacKie-Mason on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • G. Calamita on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Howard Wasserman on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Gerard Magliocca on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Mike on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Ben on Lifecycles and the Firm

    • Samir Chopra on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Netflix and “Throttling”

posted by Daniel Solove

netflix1.jpgNetflix allows customers to rent movies online — as many as they want. According to the company’s website:

With Netflix you can rent as many DVDs as you want from the comfort of your home and have them delivered to your door in about 1 business day! There are no late fees and no due dates, and shipping is free both ways. Plans start at $9.99 plus any applicable tax. With our most popular plan, 3 at-a-time (Unlimited), you can rent as many DVDs as you want for just $17.99 a month plus any applicable tax. You keep a revolving library of up to 3 DVDs at a time and can exchange them for new available DVDs as often as you like.

Sounds like a great deal, right? Well, if you use it really well to your advantage, Netflix will penalize you. According to the AP:

Manuel Villanueva realizes he has been getting a pretty good deal since he signed up for Netflix Inc.’s online DVD rental service 2 1/2 years ago, but he still feels shortchanged. That’s because the $17.99 monthly fee that he pays to rent up to three DVDs at a time would amount to an even bigger bargain if the company didn’t penalize him for returning his movies so quickly.

Netflix typically sends about 13 movies per month to Villanueva’s home in Warren, Mich. — down from the 18 to 22 DVDs he once received before the company’s automated system identified him as a heavy renter and began delaying his shipments to protect its profits.

The same Netflix formula also shoves Villanueva to the back of the line for the most-wanted DVDs, so the service can send those popular flicks to new subscribers and infrequent renters.

The little-known practice, called “throttling” by critics, means Netflix customers who pay the same price for the same service are often treated differently, depending on their rental patterns.

“I wouldn’t have a problem with it if they didn’t advertise ‘unlimited rentals,’” Villanueva said. “The fact is that they go out of their way to make sure you don’t go over whatever secret limit they have set up for your account.”

Originally, Netflix kept its differential treatment of customers a secret, but after a class-action lawsuit, Netflix now warns about this in the fine print:

“In determining priority for shipping and inventory allocation, we give priority to those members who receive the fewest DVDs through our service,” Netflix’s revised policy now reads. The statement specifically warns that heavy renters are more likely to encounter shipping delays and less likely to immediately be sent their top choices.

Is Netflix still adequately disclosing what it is doing? The “How It Works” page, where you read up about what a great deal Netflix is, makes it sound like the sky’s the limit. If you click on the FAQ on the side of that page called How fast will I get my DVDs? you will not hear even a whisper of any differential priority system. Only if you bother to read the laborious “Terms of Use” page will you discover that the sky isn’t made out of cotton candy. And unlike the “How It Works” page, which is readily accessible, the link to the “Terms of Use” page is found in the fine print at the bottom of the website.

That’s the problem with companies offering great “deals” like Netflix — they depend upon many people not really getting the maximum value of the deal. On the other hand, Netflix might not be profitable if too many people rented too many videos.

But why not just be honest and call a spade a spade? Netflix could just come clean and say on its “How It Works” page: “The more videos you order in a month, the harder we’ll make it for you to order more.” Perhaps it could even be more blunt: “Order as many videos as you want, but if you order a lot, we’ll treat you like crap.” But if it said that, the marketing department would be up in arms. After all, to hook in the customers, it’s better to promise that the “sky’s the limit.” Most customers won’t reach for the sky, but they’ll like feeling that they could if they wanted to. For those that try, treat them like crap, try to get rid of them . . . they’re not profitable.


 February 12, 2006 at 12:27 am   Posted in: Consumer Protection Law, Contract Law & Beyond   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (7)

  1. ac - February 12, 2006 at 2:14 am

    The same problem applies to “unlimited” Internet service. Try using your cable or DSL Internet access to download more than a few gigabytes a month. What makes it more frustrating is a readily available standard to describe exactly how unlimited the service is: http://www.zvon.org/tmRFC/RFC3290/Output/chapter12.html

  2. dan - February 12, 2006 at 10:45 am

    fascinating stuff, Dan. I’m very disappointed to discover this information. I wonder if there are other providers who don’t have this hidden “if you like us too much, we’ll treat you like crap” policy.

  3. pond - February 12, 2006 at 2:12 pm

    The TOS page and their offering page should read instead, “All the dvds you want (up to X each month)”

    This would actually help NetFlix keep movie-lovers happy, and let us better judge differences in the different levels of plans.

    The ’3 out’ plan seems to top off about 12, 13 dvds per month, for example. That’s not a bad deal, since rentals work out to about $1.50 per rental, and you don’t have to drive to the video store to take out and return them. But where does the ’5 out’ plan top off? Would that work out to less than $1.50, or more? If Netflix just came clean with us, then we could make more informed decisions. And if Netflix worked it so that the ’5 out’ plan topped off at $1.25 per rental, say — then we’d have incentives to pay Netflix the $25/month rentals.

  4. Bruce - February 12, 2006 at 7:13 pm

    Burying an important and material disclaimer about what “unlimited” means in fine print doesn’t seem consistent with FTC policy on disclosures:

    In reviewing their online ads, advertisers should adopt the perspective of a reasonable consumer. They also should assume that consumers don’t read an entire Web site, just as they don’t read every word on a printed page. In addition, it is important for advertisers to draw attention to the disclosure. Making the disclosure available somewhere in the ad so that consumers who are looking for the information might find it doesn’t meet the clear and conspicuous standard.

  5. West - February 14, 2006 at 9:47 pm

    AC, that standard has absolutely nothing to do with how much you download each month. That is not to say that your service provider may be using some other algorithm to limit your overall bandidth usage, but leaky bucket algorithms have do do with rate limiting over fractions of a second to a second or two, not minutes, hours or months.

  6. David Rodrigues - November 21, 2006 at 12:43 pm

    I have rent 8 at a time with netflix and for a while things was good but now forget it i mean I wait days for my movies to come in sometimes 4 days and when i rent movie series that has 24 episodes on them ranged from 3 disc to 8 on them netflix used to send disk 1 threw 8 in order so when i recieved them i can watch episodes in order but lately netflix sends all episodes except for disk 3 and netflix knows i cant watch other ones without watching disk3 whats point in watching melrose place season one and watching episodes out of order makes no sense and still after week i still waiting for disk3 and reported it already. I cant watch the rest of melrose place unless i get disk3 and then watch rest. So sick of there throttleing i might well cancel my account and make another email and start over and do that 3 times a year so that way it fools there pc on putting me on the secretive throttleing service. This almost like racism where certain race gets better treatment than the other its almost like that in terms of movies instead.

  7. David Rodrigues - November 21, 2006 at 12:47 pm

    Whats the point in saving all wanted films in queaue thing if netflix doesnt go in order specially on tv series i mean they will go in order for people not on throttling list but after a while they send disk3 instead of 1 and 2 first i mean they hold bakc few disk and say its been shipped but in reality it still at there place. Lairs just say theres a damn limit and stop secretly treating our badly my god this feels like Soviet Union or KBG or somthing like that. NETFLIX actually owned but putin!!! who knows. This is somthing communist would do i mean thats there style of doing things

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress