New Jersey Sues Blockbuster

[Joe]

NEW YORK (Feb 18) -- Blockbuster Inc., the largest video renter, has deceived customers with its new "No More Late Fees" rental policy, New Jersey Attorney General Peter Harvey said on Friday in announcing a lawsuit filed against the company.

"Blockbuster boldly announced its 'No More Late Fees' policy, but has not told customers about the big fees they are charged if they keep videos or games for more than a week after they are due," Harvey said in a statement.

Officials in several other states, including Blockbuster's home state of Texas, were also keeping a close eye on developments surrounding Blockbuster's new movie rental policy, people familiar with the matter said.

A spokeswoman for New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer declined to comment.

In a statement outlining the complaint filed in Superior Court in Mercer County, Harvey accused Blockbuster of failing to disclose key terms of the policy and said some stores did not follow the policy but continued to charge late fees.

"Blockbuster's ads are fraudulent and deceptive," he added.

Blockbuster spokeswoman Karen Raskopf said the company was surprised that Harvey's office "never directly contacted us about this" before filing the suit. She said Blockbuster stood by its new policy and has done everything to explain to customers how it works.

"We are disappointed he took this action because we believe the end of late fees program is a terrific program, and we've received tremendous feedback from our customers and employees," Raskopf said.

Blockbuster -- currently locked in a bitter takeover battle for No. 2 U.S. movie renter Hollywood Entertainment Corp. -- unveiled the policy in December in an attempt to reinvigorate its business as competition escalates.

Blockbuster at the time had said that under the new plan customers would have a one-week grace period after a rental's due date. If a movie or game were not returned during that week, the customer would be charged for the purchase of the item. If the item was returned within 30 days, the customer would be able to receive an account credit but would be charged a restocking fee of $1.25.

Harvey said in some instances the restocking fee can be as high as $4.50. He said the state is seeking restitution for Blockbuster customers whose overdue rentals were converted to sales, were charged restocking fees or charged late fees by a nonparticipating store.

The state also seeks civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act.

Tom Dougherty, managing director and senior strategist at brand development firm Stealing Share, Inc., said fallout from the new rental policy could tarnish Blockbuster's brand in the eyes of its customers if the company were to be found culpable.

Blockbuster, based in Dallas, has been facing increasing competition from discount retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and online companies like Netflix Inc.. Blockbuster in October had cut its fee for online DVD rentals, in response to a similar move by Netflix.

Its shares were up 8 cents at $9.16 on the New York Stock Exchange.

[Celeval]

Do people no longer read the fine print? It's pretty frikkin' obvious if you actually pay attention.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

So Blockbuster can force a governor so drop to his knees and perform when he doesn't return a movie within a week of its due date?

[General Mike]

Idiots wasting my tax dollars.

[MikeVic]

Is it just me, or has the Blockbuster renting fees in your areas also gone up quite a bit? I think it's around $2 more for a game rental now...

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Is it just me, or has the Blockbuster renting fees in your areas also gone up quite a bit? I think it's around $2 more for a game rental now...

Luke resist the dark side. Use netflix.

[scarface132]

Netflix is the bomb!

[gstelmack]

I'm with New Jersey on this. Blockbuster says "No Late Fees!", then charges you a fee if you are sufficiently late. That's a Late Fee, no matter how they try to spin it. I'm glad someone is calling the advertisers on this stuff, I'm getting tired of them thinking they can get away with saying anything.

[Pyser]

my state rocks.

that is all.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by scarface132

Netflix is the bomb!

Instead, I'm rewarding Blockbuster for duplicating Netflix's business plan.

[Ksyrup]

Just read an article where Florida's AG said he was "looking into" the fees.

I'm shocked NJ's AG beat Spitzer to the punch. That guy loves muggin' for the cameras.

[Arles]

I like Blockbuster.com much better than NetFlix. It's only like $14.99 a month for 3 movies and you get two free rental coupons every month that can be used for games (which are like $7 to rent now) or movies. So, I used the two coupons on console games ($14 value there alone) that I can keep for a week-plus and now rarely need to purchase console games. Plus, the address on the DVD sleave is local to Arizona (only about 20 min from where I live) so the movies get registered very quickly. NetFlix always seemed to take longer to get here in Arizona and there was no coupons for free movie/game rentals locally.

[Ironhead]

Ironically enough I went to go rent a movie at Blockbuster tonight for the first time in about 4 or 5 months. I still had a $6.50 late fee on my account, and while I did have to pay it they gave me a free movie rental for paying my late fee. So basically they canceled it even though it dated all the way back to October or so of last year, which I thought was quite spiffy.

[kingnebwsu]

Rental games from Blockbuster went up nationwide by $1 on 12/28/04. They're now $6.99+tax in most places for a week. Also when this happened, Blockbuster got rid of 5-day games and made them all a week. That's the trade-off.

I hate lawsuits.

[dubb93]

I actually like the suit. I was in blockbuster recently and was discussing this with my friend who happens to manage it. It seemed, from the way he described, much more like a 2 week rental than no late fees. No late fees means no late fees. I don't like the false advertisement. They should be truthful and say "You now gets movies and games 1 week longer."

People may take the no more late fees as meaning you can rent a game and keep it untill you beat it. Of couse in reality if you did this at block buster you would be charged a "re-stocking fee" or in real terms a "late fee." Seems like false advertisement to me, fine print or no fine print.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

Luke resist the dark side. Use netflix.

Or GameFly, if you're into the games thing.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'm with New Jersey on this. Blockbuster says "No Late Fees!", then charges you a fee if you are sufficiently late. That's a Late Fee, no matter how they try to spin it. I'm glad someone is calling the advertisers on this stuff, I'm getting tired of them thinking they can get away with saying anything.

I'm with you on that. You want to claim "No Late Fees"? Make sure there aren't any.

[AgustusM]

market capitalism will take care of this - Blockbuster charges people enough late fees and they will eventually find something better - like Netflix.

the fact it took Blockbuster so long to react and deal with netflix shows how poorly they are managed.

If they had gone to a netflix-style model years ago when netflix first started to make a dent they could have crushed the then small netflix - now netflix has millions of former blockbuster and current netflix customers like myself who would never dream of going back.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Just read an article where Florida's AG said he was "looking into" the fees.

I'm shocked NJ's AG beat Spitzer to the punch. That guy loves muggin' for the cameras.

Spitzer is absolutely a media hound. The only guy I've ever seen get a bigger start at the run for higher public office was Gray Davis. The thing I like most about Spitzer is that he really is bringing down the big game in some cases. Gotta hand it to him for that. Other times, like going after Richard Grasso I question the merit of his position, and think he really is truly just out "mugging" for the cameras.

[JeeberD]

Blockbuster is based in Dallas? I think I'm going to be sick...

[clintl]

Originally Posted by AgustusM

market capitalism will take care of this - Blockbuster charges people enough late fees and they will eventually find something better - like Netflix.

the fact it took Blockbuster so long to react and deal with netflix shows how poorly they are managed.

If they had gone to a netflix-style model years ago when netflix first started to make a dent they could have crushed the then small netflix - now netflix has millions of former blockbuster and current netflix customers like myself who would never dream of going back.

Market forces ALREADY took care of the late fee issue. The problem is that Blockbuster has launched a big ad campaign that thoroughly misrepresents their response. They are committing fraud against the public by intentionally deceiving the public about their new policy. Laws against deceptive and false advertising exist because market forces are too slow to prevent people from being harmed by this kind of corporate sleaziness.

[Arles]

I don't know a whole lot on the legality of this, but it seems to me that Blockbuster can say there are no more late fees. Here's what it appears their stance is:

Their policy now is that they give you the time for your original rental plus an extra week of swag with no late fees. Then, after two weeks, they make the conclusion that the person wants to buy the item and not return it. At that time, they allow the person to keep the item and charge their card for its value. And, to allow for the fact they may not be correct in their conclusion, they allow the person to return the movie/game and get a refund of some sort.

It seems to me that they have indeed gotten rid of late fees. Charging a person for the value of the product and allowing them to keep it is not the same as "late fees" IMO.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'm with New Jersey on this. Blockbuster says "No Late Fees!", then charges you a fee if you are sufficiently late. That's a Late Fee, no matter how they try to spin it. I'm glad someone is calling the advertisers on this stuff, I'm getting tired of them thinking they can get away with saying anything.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm with you on that. You want to claim "No Late Fees"? Make sure there aren't any.

Heh heh. Are you guys serious? So, it would be perfectly okay to rent a movie for $5 (vice buying it), and then hold onto it until DVDs go the way of VHS?

I can see it now: 10 years from now, I bring in 1,000 movies on DVD to my Blockbuster. "But you said no late fees in 2005!!!"

Originally Posted by Celeval

Do people no longer read the fine print? It's pretty frikkin' obvious if you actually pay attention.

I agree with this completely. There has to be some type of time limitation. Do you expect this business to run on people's goodwill? Isn't that how late fees started?

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Arles

Their policy now is that they give you the time for your original rental plus an extra week of swag with no late fees. Then, after two weeks, they make the conclusion that the person wants to buy the item and not return it. At that time, they allow the person to keep the item and charge their card for its value. And, to allow for the fact they may not be correct in their conclusion, they allow the person to return the movie/game and get a refund of some sort.

Exactly. People are looking at: "Oh, if I return after a week late, I paid $1.75."

That's not how it works. If you keep the game/movie a week past the due date, you're charged for the whole thing. If you then return it, you get all of it back, less the processing/restocking. Not a late fee - at that point, it's returning a purchased movie to Best Buy or someplace, and getting all but x% back.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Heh heh. Are you guys serious? So, it would be perfectly okay to rent a movie for $5 (vice buying it), and then hold onto it until DVDs go the way of VHS?

I can see it now: 10 years from now, I bring in 1,000 movies on DVD to my Blockbuster. "But you said no late fees in 2005!!!"

I think they were stupid to say "no late fees!" in the first place. They are clearly trying to capitalize on the fact that people will think "cool, I can keep it as long as I like!", and that's false advertising.

If the marketing campaign said something like:

You can now keep your rentals a full 2 weeks, and if you keep it longer we'll assume you want to buy it and charge you for it. If you return it up to 4 weeks after renting it, we'll gladly take it back for a restocking fee.

then there'd be no case. But saying "No Late Fees!" only implies exactly what you said above: if I'm 6 years late in returning it, there shouldn't be a fee. Period, paragraph, end of discussion. If they can capitalize on the slogan, why are you so upset with consumers who capitalize on it as well?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't know a whole lot on the legality of this, but it seems to me that Blockbuster can say there are no more late fees. Here's what it appears their stance is:

Their policy now is that they give you the time for your original rental plus an extra week of swag with no late fees. Then, after two weeks, they make the conclusion that the person wants to buy the item and not return it. At that time, they allow the person to keep the item and charge their card for its value. And, to allow for the fact they may not be correct in their conclusion, they allow the person to return the movie/game and get a refund of some sort.

It seems to me that they have indeed gotten rid of late fees. Charging a person for the value of the product and allowing them to keep it is not the same as "late fees" IMO.

They should say so in their advertising. What they are trying to imply in their advertising is that their policy is like Netflix's (which doesn't have a late fee, it just doesn't send you more movies until you send back the movie you rented). If they stated their actual policy in the ads (which they don't do anywhere in the ads I've seen on TV - I assume print ads have disclaimer in microscopic font, but I haven't looked at one), then this issue would not exist.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by clintl

They should say so in their advertising.

Why? Advertising is trying to promote an item, not go through every possible scenerio you may face. Should HP state in their printer ads that they have a 15% return rate on certain products? Isn't that kind of misleading if they don't and say they have the best quality printers? Come on.

Blockbuster says they have no late fees - and they don't. They have a policy that transitions from a rental to a purchase if the rental period goes over a certain grace period. This means they don't allow you to rent a movie and keep it for two years. But I would think most people would have enough common sense to realize that.

What they are trying to imply in their advertising is that their policy is like Netflix's (which doesn't have a late fee, it just doesn't send you more movies until you send back the movie you rented).

No, netflix is a monthly service setup and they already have a policy just like that at Blockbuster (I think it's $20-25 a month for keeping two movies out as long as you want).

Rentals are a completely different process and I think it's a safe assumption to make that people understand that concept.

If they stated their actual policy in the ads (which they don't do anywhere in the ads I've seen on TV - I assume print ads have disclaimer in microscopic font, but I haven't looked at one), then this issue would not exist.

What you are saying now is akin to saying Netflix needs to explain in every ad that if you cancel your service with Netflix you need to return the movies you currently have out. After all, they say you can keep these movies as long as you like and it could be a little confusing to some people. Seems a little silly, doesn't it?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Arles

Why? Advertising is trying to promote an item, not go through every possible scenerio you may face. Should HP state in their printer ads that they have a 15% return rate on certain products? Isn't that kind of misleading if they don't and say they have the best quality printers? Come on.

Blockbuster says they have no late fees - and they don't. They have a policy that transitions from a rental to a purchase if the rental period goes over a certain grace period. This means they don't allow you to rent a movie and keep it for two years. But I would think most people would have enough common sense to realize that.

This isn't about common sense. It's about what a company is claiming in an effort to mislead the public to regain market share they've lost to competitors. "No Late Fees" means either I can't be late with it, or if I am there is no fee for being late. They didn't say "Reduced Late Fees", they didn't say "Easier Time Returning Late Movies", they didn't say "Rent-to-Own" (which is probably the closes thing to what they're doing), and they sure as heck didn't say "Try Before You Buy for a Small Fee" (exactly what they are doing). They said "No Late Fees", but you get charged money (a "restocking fee") if you return the item late. Wait long enough, you can't return it at all.

We're not arguing that their new policy is unreasonable, just that they are mischaracterizing it in advertising. The standard you are applying is "any reasonable consumer can see that they are lying", but I don't think that takes them off the hook for actually lying in the first place.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Arles

Why? Advertising is trying to promote an item, not go through every possible scenerio you may face.

Because there are laws against false advertising. Laws the public demanded, and with good reason.

[Tekneek]

When I ride by Blockbuster and see a big "NO MORE LATE FEES" banner out front, that is exactly what I would expect to find. It *IS* deceptive to still have fees for late movies with that hanging out front. I suppose deceptive advertising shouldn't be a crime, but I don't know how having the truth hidden in fine print makes the campaign any less deceptive.

I don't trust Blockbuster anyway, so I knew there had to be a catch to it. Their most recent attempt to secure their relative monopoly was a bid to buy Hollywood Video. With that bid rejected, they are launching a hostike takeover attempt. Hollywood Video is way better than Blockbuster, and has been since they first started showing up around Atlanta a decade or so ago. I use Netflix 99.999999% of the time for movies these days, so it matters little...but I've never been a fan of Blockbuster since they bought out the music stores around my house as a teen and closed every one of them.

[Raiders Army]

Okay, after some thought I see this boiled down to two issues:

1. Definition of late fees. Obviously people have different definitions of what late fees are. The people who are saying that Blockbuster is wrong definitely has a broadened definition of late fees.

2. False Advertising. Dependent on what you believe the definition of late fees are, you would be on one side of the fence or the other in the dispute on false advertising.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

But I would think most people would have enough common sense to realize that.

Surely you cannot be that naive.

Rarely does anyone go broke overestimating the stupidity of the average consumer.

In this case, I don't see anything remotely approaching "false advertising" -- there are no late fees, just as the ads claim -- I just see the same thing I see in 90% of all advertising, a campaign designed to maximize the benefits of a buying public that's fairly fucking stupid.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

When I ride by Blockbuster and see a big "NO MORE LATE FEES" banner out front, that is exactly what I would expect to find. It *IS* deceptive to still have fees for late movies with that hanging out front. I suppose deceptive advertising shouldn't be a crime, but I don't know how having the truth hidden in fine print makes the campaign any less deceptive.

Aha. Yes, I would agree that it's deceptive advertising, not false advertising. But then again, isn't most advertising deceptive advertising?

3/4 doctors recommended.
0% financing.
Results may vary
And more.

Check out this link:
http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/starek/nima96d4.htm

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

1. Definition of late fees. Obviously people have different definitions of what late fees are. The people who are saying that Blockbuster is wrong definitely has a broadened definition of late fees.

What would I define as a late fee? Any fee that I am charged for returning an item beyond its due date. Did they, in the past, charge this 'restocking fee' for movies returned that late? If they did not, then this is very shady. That would mean they dropped the late fees so they could have their marketing bonanza, while creating a new fee to sneak in on the backside. If this 'restocking fee' thing has not been changed at all, then I would reverse my opinion on the matter.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Okay, after some thought I see this boiled down to two issues:

1. Definition of late fees. Obviously people have different definitions of what late fees are. The people who are saying that Blockbuster is wrong definitely has a broadened definition of late fees.

Technically, it isn't a late fee. It is either a purchase price, or a restocking fee. "No late fees" is technically correct, but it is misleading.

2. False Advertising. Dependent on what you believe the definition of late fees are, you would be on one side of the fence or the other in the dispute on false advertising.

I would call this false advertising. Blockbuster is clearly implying something that isn't true. The website does make it easy enough to figure out what the real rules are. At the very least, they should have to put some kind of disclaimer on the ads. More likely, the ads should be pulled.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Aha. Yes, I would agree that it's deceptive advertising, not false advertising. But then again, isn't most advertising deceptive advertising?

3/4 doctors recommended.
0% financing.
Results may vary
And more.

Check out this link:
http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/starek/nima96d4.htm

For the record, I have a problem with all advertising that is deceptive from the very beginning. I don't even like car commercials that tell you not to do what they are doing, or show the car doing something it would never be able to do.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Aha. Yes, I would agree that it's deceptive advertising, not false advertising. But then again, isn't most advertising deceptive advertising?

3/4 doctors recommended.
0% financing.
Results may vary
And more.

Check out this link:
http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/starek/nima96d4.htm

I see a difference between playing with statistics and changing the definition of common words and phrases. What if Blockbuster changed their advertising to say "Never pay to rent movies again", and then charged a customer a rental fee for the disc that the movie is on? Or maybe charge for renting the case? Or maybe just charge a processing fee for the checkout person's time?

This seems like pretty much the same situation to me.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by BrianD

What if Blockbuster changed their advertising to say "Never pay to rent movies again", and then charged a customer a rental fee for the disc that the movie is on? Or maybe charge for renting the case? Or maybe just charge a processing fee for the checkout person's time?

I could see them dropping the "rental fee" and having a "temporary movie licensing fee" instead. You aren't renting the movie, you are buying a temporary license to watch the movie.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

My good ol' home state. Nothing better to do than sue major retail video chains.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

What would I define as a late fee? Any fee that I am charged for returning an item beyond its due date. Did they, in the past, charge this 'restocking fee' for movies returned that late? If they did not, then this is very shady. That would mean they dropped the late fees so they could have their marketing bonanza, while creating a new fee to sneak in on the backside. If this 'restocking fee' thing has not been changed at all, then I would reverse my opinion on the matter.

You're being charged a fee for returning an item after it was purchased, not after it was due. It's still due 2 days/1 week after rented. You then buy it if you keep it too long. I guess I'm still lost here.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Celeval

You're being charged a fee for returning an item after it was purchased, not after it was due. It's still due 2 days/1 week after rented. You then buy it if you keep it too long. I guess I'm still lost here.

They don't tell you you're buying it in the ad. The ad says NOTHING about an auto-purchase if it's late. They say they took away "late fees", but don't say a word about what they replaced it with. That's my fundamental beef with the whole thing.

And yes, much of advertising out there does the same kind of garbage, and I wish more AGs would go after more advertisers for not explaining the truth. I mean, if Cialis has to put up their 4-hour warning, why should Blockbuster get away with not telling you there's a different charge if you return it late?

[Arles]

Do you guys honestly think that people out there are saying "Hey, with no late fees, I can keep this movie for 10 years!". The best parallel for this would be if you rented a movie and snapped the disk in half. Do you really think you would not have to pay to replace it?

Well, in this situation, if it is over a week after the movie was due and you haven't returned it, Blockbuster is stuck with a conclusion that either you have broken the movie or have no intention of returning it. And, IMO, from their standpoint that's a distinction without a difference.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Arles

Do you guys honestly think that people out there are saying "Hey, with no late fees, I can keep this movie for 10 years!". The best parallel for this would be if you rented a movie and snapped the disk in half. Do you really think you would not have to pay to replace it?

Well, in this situation, if it is over a week after the movie was due and you haven't returned it, Blockbuster is stuck with a conclusion that either you have broken the movie or have no intention of returning it. And, IMO, from their standpoint that's a distinction without a difference.

Nobody has a problem with Blockbuster charging the purchase price after a certain amount of time if the movie isn't returned. The problem is that they are not being truthful about the policy in their advertising. They are saying flat out, "No Late Fees." Tonight on the news, they showed huge posters they're displaying in their stores windows, and there was no disclaimer on the posters, not even in small print. It's very clear that this campaign was developed with deception in mind.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by clintl

Nobody has a problem with Blockbuster charging the purchase price after a certain amount of time if the movie isn't returned. The problem is that they are not being truthful about the policy in their advertising. They are saying flat out, "No Late Fees." Tonight on the news, they showed huge posters they're displaying in their stores windows, and there was no disclaimer on the posters, not even in small print. It's very clear that this campaign was developed with deception in mind.

Yep. The problem is that saying 'No Late Fees' and then thinking the person really wants to buy a DVD after having kept it for a week is basically a late fee. You can argue that it isn't really, it's thinking that you want to buy the disk, but it doesn't matter what you call it, in the end you are being charged a fee for not returning a video on time. The 'fee' is a refundable (within a certain period of time) sale to you.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Unless I'm missing something here, Blockbuster has simply gone to the same basic method that some restaurants & truck stops have been using for books-on-tape for the past several years. It's not like this is anything new, except this one has a bigger marketing budget.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yep. The problem is that saying 'No Late Fees' and then thinking the person really wants to buy a DVD after having kept it for a week is basically a late fee. You can argue that it isn't really, it's thinking that you want to buy the disk, but it doesn't matter what you call it, in the end you are being charged a fee for not returning a video on time. The 'fee' is a refundable (within a certain period of time) sale to you.

Circles. This is what this thread has gone into. Circles. Again, your (and many others') definition of a late fee is much more broad than other people.

[Arles]

To me, a late fee involves a service fee to "rent" a product, ie - no ownership. If Blockbuster charged a person a "fee" after they were a week late AND the person had to return the item, I would agree that their stance isn't valid.

But, if a person that rents out items has a policy that after a certain number of days past due, the rental becomes a purchase - that is NOT a late fee. There is ownership here and you are purchasing an item (not just renting it). Add in the fact that Blockbuster allows you to still return the item after this and get a refund and I don't see what the big issue is.

I could go to Blockbuster, rent a movie and keep it for over a week after I agreed to return it. Then, Blockbuster charges my card. I find out about another week later, storm in and return the movie (a movie that I am now over 2 weeks past due on the contract I agreed to when I rented it). And all I would be stuck with is a couple bucks for a restocking fee. In essense, I rented a movie for over 3 weeks for about $6 - with no late fee imposed.

Yet, somehow, this is unfair to the customer and Blockbuster is lying when they say they have no late fees.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yet, somehow, this is unfair to the customer and Blockbuster is lying when they say they have no late fees.

Let's make this real simple. If you return a movie late, do you have to pay a fee?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Let's make this real simple. If you return a movie late, do you have to pay a fee?

No, you have to make a purchase (that you can return if you do not wish to). There is a big difference.

[Airhog]

Arles: your forgetting one thing however, Blockbuster had the same policy before. If you didnt return a movie, the most in late fees they would charge you is the price of the movie. How is this any different?