logo
The rise of 'bait-and-switch pricing'

The rise of 'bait-and-switch pricing'

U-Haul trucks are a fixture of modern American life. They're invisible and ubiquitous at the same time — you don't think about them until you need one, or one's blocking the bike lane, or it's move-in day at the local college. Suddenly, the big white-and-orange vans are impossible to overlook. So is the price tag slapped on the side: "$19.95." In bright green, it's meant to stand out. Except that $19.95 is not what you will actually pay.
Truth in Advertising, a watchdog group focused on sketchy advertising and deceptive marketing, filed formal complaints on Monday with the Federal Trade Commission and nearly two dozen state attorneys general, urging them to put a stop to what they described as U-Haul's"bait-and-switch pricing scheme." While the $19.95 emblazoned on the trucks comes with some fine print — it's for in-town moves, and doesn't include mileage and fees — consumers don't always realize ahead of time just how big those little add-ons may wind up being. Plus, the fine print isn't exactly easy to read on a moving vehicle.
"There's not a consumer on the entire planet who will pay this $19.95 for a U-Haul truck," Laura Smith, TINA.org 's legal director, says. "So the price is false."
The complaint sent to the FTC says the company "advertises a misleadingly low moving truck rental fee and then adds on a multitude of other fees and charges throughout the reservation and rental process."
It's another example of how difficult pricing has become to navigate across the economy. Not only are costs constantly changing, but companies employ tactics such as bait-and-switch pricing and hidden fees to reel people in with one number, only to tack on countless extra charges. By the time a customer gets to the final number they owe, it's nowhere near what they expected. It's not just U-Haul; the switcheroo happens with airlines, hotels, concerts, cable companies, and more. It's so common that many people simply throw up their hands and just accept whatever their impossible-to-decipher receipt says they owe.
"What it really makes it hard to do is to compare the prices of things, and that's really the biggest harm it does to the market," Rebecca Tushnet, a Harvard law professor who studies false advertising law, tells me. "It leads the whole market to become unreliable and unstable, because you can't really effectively fight back."
In reporting this story, I decided to dig up the receipt for my last DIY move where I used a U-Haul, which, thankfully, was back in 2016. Lo and behold, the $19.95 rental rate is listed. So is a bunch of other stuff: $10.32 for the 8 miles I apparently drove, $11 for what looks like insurance, and $1 for an "environmental fee," which U-Haul's website says is "used to support and foster the development and maintenance of sustainable U-Haul business operations," plus taxes. My total wound up being $45.05, more than double the advertised rate for what was, all in all, a short move. At the end, it even lists the total (before taxes) under "Actual Charges."
There's not a consumer on the entire planet who will pay this $19.95 for a U-Haul truck.
When someone rents a moving truck, U-Haul automatically folds in fees that consumers can't get out of, such as the environmental fee, which immediately pushes the cost above the $19.95 rate. These fees could, in theory, be wrapped into the original price, but instead they're tacked on at the end. There are also mandatory-ish charges, such as insurance, mileage, and tolls, that people may not entirely understand or know whether they need. Many consumers have had the experience of standing at a car or truck rental counter trying to figure out whether they actually need the insurance the agent is trying to sell them on, or if the guy is just trying to up his commission. As consumers go through the U-Haul booking process, they're nudged toward all sorts of extra services and charges, including moving blankets, dollies, and movers. Some of these items are preselected, so consumers have to actively unselect them or scroll to a small-font option to skip.
"They're not mandatory, but you have to sift through those screens before you actually check out," Smith says.
Smith says that consumers have reported a "slew of" other fees they'd been charged by U-Haul — for cleaning, extra mileage, late returns, lost keys, and more — many of which customers disputed as unfair. The problem isn't the price U-Haul is charging, she says, "the problem is how they advertise the price." You may walk in expecting a cheap deal to pick up that couch down the street, and walk out with a multiline receipt that leaves your wallet lighter than you expected.
This isn't the first time U-Haul's pricing practices have drawn scrutiny. In 2010, it settled charges brought by the FTC accusing it of inviting its closest competitor, Avis Budget Group, to collude to fix prices on one-way truck rentals.
"Here we are in 2025, and obviously it's a different kind of deceptive pricing issue, but nonetheless, continuing to engage in deceptive marketing or in deceptive pricing," Smith tells me.
The fees appear to be a money-maker for U-Haul. In its third fiscal quarter, ending in December, the company reported a $38.8 million increase in revenue for self-moving equipment rental, a 4.6% jump from the year before. Per-transaction revenue increased for both its in-town and one-way markets.
U-Haul didn't respond to requests for comment for this story. It did not admit wrongdoing in its 2010 settlement with the FTC.
Moving is wildly stressful. It's always harder and takes longer than you think and, often, more expensive than you expect. Moving companies' estimates can be eye-popping. Truck rentals such as U-Hauls are positioned as an alternative, cheaper option — assuming you have some very nice friends who are willing to help — but their costs can get unwieldy fast. In such high-stress situations, it's extra difficult for customers to compare prices and police fees.
"They invest time, energy, and effort in trying to rent a moving truck, and by the time they discover the true price of the rental, they've already sunk their time and energy into getting the truck," Smith says. When you show up at the rental lot the day of your move and realize that $19.95 is actually $60, are you really going to change course? It's unlikely.
This is the kind of stuff companies that engage in bait-and-switch and drip pricing, where they show one initial price and gradually add other fees and charges on, depend on: consumers getting so confused, tired, or distracted that they don't have the wherewithal to push back.
"People sort of end their searches very early," Tushnet says. "Even if it's more than they expect to pay, and even if there are better alternatives out there, they've just exhausted their time to look, and so they end up paying the extra."
Companies do it because they try to make things seem as affordable as possible.
Less-than-straightforward advertising strategies around pricing are a staple of many industries, including rental cars, plane tickets, and live entertainment. Some industries argue that these types of setups are beneficial for consumers. Airlines, for example, say all the optional add-on fees make it possible for passengers to choose their own adventures in terms of amenities and comfort. Banks say overdraft and late fees are fair when consumers screw up and discourage them from overspending in the first place. In other industries, it's more common for companies to pass the buck and say it's not really their fault. Rental car services aren't the only ones tacking on extra fees and taxes to their services — airports, states, and municipalities do it, too. When one asks who's responsible for concert ticket fees, all parties involved point fingers. Whatever the justification, the benefit for companies is clear: It's a way to get customers in the door.
"Companies do it because they try to make things seem as affordable as possible, they try to lure you in with this super-low price even if they know darn well that the total is going to be much higher than with all the mandatory fees," says Teresa Murray, the consumer watchdog director for the US Public Interest Research Group, an advocacy group. "Companies don't try hard enough to be transparent."
As consumers, we've almost become accustomed to the idea that we won't really know what things are going to cost until we're about to swipe our credit cards or sign on the dotted line. We try our best to comparison shop, but it's hard when the actual costs aren't listed up front. You can mentally bake in some fees or a little markup, but how much that's going to be is tough to gauge. Ultimately, consumer advocates say these practices often lead to diminished competition and consumers paying higher prices.
There have been some efforts to reverse the trend on a government level. On May 12, a new FTC rule on deceptive or unfair fees is set to take effect. It bars bait-and-switch and other misleading pricing tactics on live events and short-term lodging such as hotels, and requires businesses in those sectors to disclose total pricing up front.
"If that kind of thing applied to a bunch of other industries, like we were hoping, then we wouldn't have the problems like what we're talking about," Murray says. She added that some businesses are taking it upon themselves to be more forthcoming about their prices. More all-in pricing would help consumers compare deals and mean more honest competition for people's dollars. But don't hold your breath on an economy-wide price transparency transformation out of the goodness of corporate America's heart. Murray offered some tips on how consumers can protect themselves: Read the fine print, ask questions, don't be afraid to walk away, and do your transactions on a credit card so you can dispute the charges later if you need. It's smart, practical advice. It's also a reminder that, as consumers, we always have to be on defense.
As for U-Haul, it's not clear whether the FTC or state regulators will take action. Truth in Advertising has heard from a couple of states that said they'd look into it, which isn't unusual since potential regulatory investigations are generally kept confidential. In the meantime, the next time you're renting a moving truck, know that $19.95 sounds too good to be true because it is. You'll very likely be met with more charges and fees, plus the pizza and beer you have to buy for your friends as you collectively realize you're too old to schlep that couch up a flight of stairs.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Canada commits billions in military spending to meet NATO target
Canada commits billions in military spending to meet NATO target

Boston Globe

time11 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Canada commits billions in military spending to meet NATO target

But even if Canada is able to finally hit the 2 percent threshold, that is not likely to be enough to satisfy the United States or other NATO allies. Mark Rutte, NATO's secretary general, speaking in London on Monday, called on the alliance's members to make a 'quantum leap in our collective defense' by committing to significantly higher spending targets. Rutte wants members to commit to spending 5 percent of their gross domestic products on military and defense-related activities. Trump has called for a similar spending target. Advertisement Proposals for increased spending are likely to dominate the NATO summit meeting in The Hague this month, though Rutte has not set a timeline for his increased spending plan. Carney, speaking in Toronto, said that new geopolitical threats, advances in technology, and the fraying of Canada's alliance with the United States demanded an accelerated spending schedule. 'We stood shoulder to shoulder with the Americans throughout the Cold War and in the decades that followed, as the United States played a dominant role on the world stage,' he said. 'Today, that dominance is a thing of the past.' Advertisement 'It is time for Canada to chart its own path,' he added, 'and to assert itself on the international stage.' While Carney promised to increase spending by billions of Canadian dollars, he did not specify where the funds would come from. Government officials spoke mostly in broad terms about how the money would be used. Canada's economy is heavily dependent on exports to the United States, and Trump's tariffs have targeted key industries, including autos and steel. Some economists have warned that Canada could face a recession if the tariffs persist. Carney also said the country would no longer rely as extensively on American defense contractors to supply its armed forces, underscoring Canada's strained relations with the United States and focus on shifting away from its neighbor. The Canadian government said it would immediately add 9.3 billion Canadian dollars (about $6.8 billion) to its defense budget. That will raise total defense-related spending this year to CA$62.7 billion, slightly higher than the 2 percent NATO target. To get there, the government included CA$2.5 billion in spending related to 'defense and security' for other departments, including the Canadian coast guard, an unarmed civilian agency which is under the department of fisheries. Carney's spending pledge was welcomed by defense analysts. 'This is a long-overdue announcement,' said Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, a senior fellow at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. 'This significant commitment is remarkable given how quickly they're going to have to move to make 2 percent by the end of the fiscal year.' But, she added, Carney will have to add further budget increases to fund all of the programs he is promising. Advertisement Carney laid out a long shopping list for the military, including 'new submarines, aircraft, ships, armed vehicles, and artillery.' He also said the military would add drones and sensors to monitor the seafloor in the Arctic, a vast region of the country that is becoming a source of competition among global powers such as Russia and China. But Canadian officials said that this year most of the spending would go toward things like increasing the pay and the benefits of armed forces members to help ease a severe recruitment crisis, and repairing broken equipment. Carney also said that money would be directed toward much-needed improvements, noting that three of the Royal Canadian Navy's four diesel submarines were not seaworthy. 'We will repair and maintain our ships, our aircraft, and infrastructure that for too long we allowed to rust and deteriorate,' the prime minister said. Other spending will focus on artificial intelligence and computer systems, as well as ammunition production within the country. Carney also said that Canada would look to buy more goods domestically or from allies other than the United States to equip its military. 'We should no longer send three-quarters of our defense capital spending to America,' he said. Carney said Monday that details about how the country's military needs would be financed would be revealed when a budget was released in the fall. 'Our fundamental goal in all of this is to protect Canadians,' he told reporters, 'not to satisfy NATO accountants.' This article originally appeared in

PA House passes bill requiring American-made steel in tax-payer funded projects
PA House passes bill requiring American-made steel in tax-payer funded projects

Yahoo

time42 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

PA House passes bill requiring American-made steel in tax-payer funded projects

HARRISBURG, Pa. (WHTM) — The Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed a bill Monday requiring American-made steel for all tax-payer funded projects. State law already requires government projects to use American-made steel. However, H.B. 1018 would extend this requirement to private entities receiving public funds or tax incentives. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now 'This is one way to bring back good-paying, family-sustaining jobs – by leveling the playing field for hardworking people and industries that were economically steamrolled by unfair competition,' said Rep. Frank Burns (D-Cambria), who sponsored the bill. The bill, which is a part of Burns' larger 'American Made Jobs Plan,' passed the House 200-2. It will now move to the Senate for concurrence. Mexican aluminum, steel exporters say sales in US down 63% due to tariffs The bill comes as tariffs have driven down the demand for foreign-made steel. In February, President Donald Trump ordered a 25% tariff on Mexican and Canadian steel and aluminum imports. Exporters of Mexican steel and aluminum said that has led to a 63% drop in sales to the United States. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Institutions profited after AUTO1 Group SE's (ETR:AG1) market cap rose €259m last week but retail investors profited the most
Institutions profited after AUTO1 Group SE's (ETR:AG1) market cap rose €259m last week but retail investors profited the most

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Institutions profited after AUTO1 Group SE's (ETR:AG1) market cap rose €259m last week but retail investors profited the most

Significant control over AUTO1 Group by retail investors implies that the general public has more power to influence management and governance-related decisions A total of 11 investors have a majority stake in the company with 51% ownership 34% of AUTO1 Group is held by Institutions Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Every investor in AUTO1 Group SE (ETR:AG1) should be aware of the most powerful shareholder groups. And the group that holds the biggest piece of the pie are retail investors with 44% ownership. That is, the group stands to benefit the most if the stock rises (or lose the most if there is a downturn). While retail investors were the group that reaped the most benefits after last week's 5.0% price gain, institutions also received a 34% cut. Let's delve deeper into each type of owner of AUTO1 Group, beginning with the chart below. Check out our latest analysis for AUTO1 Group Many institutions measure their performance against an index that approximates the local market. So they usually pay more attention to companies that are included in major indices. We can see that AUTO1 Group does have institutional investors; and they hold a good portion of the company's stock. This implies the analysts working for those institutions have looked at the stock and they like it. But just like anyone else, they could be wrong. If multiple institutions change their view on a stock at the same time, you could see the share price drop fast. It's therefore worth looking at AUTO1 Group's earnings history below. Of course, the future is what really matters. Our data indicates that hedge funds own 13% of AUTO1 Group. That's interesting, because hedge funds can be quite active and activist. Many look for medium term catalysts that will drive the share price higher. Cadian Capital Management, LP is currently the largest shareholder, with 13% of shares outstanding. Hkvv GmbH is the second largest shareholder owning 9.1% of common stock, and Coronation Fund Managers Limited holds about 5.0% of the company stock. After doing some more digging, we found that the top 11 have the combined ownership of 51% in the company, suggesting that no single shareholder has significant control over the company. Researching institutional ownership is a good way to gauge and filter a stock's expected performance. The same can be achieved by studying analyst sentiments. There are plenty of analysts covering the stock, so it might be worth seeing what they are forecasting, too. The definition of an insider can differ slightly between different countries, but members of the board of directors always count. Management ultimately answers to the board. However, it is not uncommon for managers to be executive board members, especially if they are a founder or the CEO. I generally consider insider ownership to be a good thing. However, on some occasions it makes it more difficult for other shareholders to hold the board accountable for decisions. Our data cannot confirm that board members are holding shares personally. It is unusual not to have at least some personal holdings by board members, so our data might be flawed. A good next step would be to check how much the CEO is paid. With a 44% ownership, the general public, mostly comprising of individual investors, have some degree of sway over AUTO1 Group. While this group can't necessarily call the shots, it can certainly have a real influence on how the company is run. It seems that Private Companies own 9.1%, of the AUTO1 Group stock. It's hard to draw any conclusions from this fact alone, so its worth looking into who owns those private companies. Sometimes insiders or other related parties have an interest in shares in a public company through a separate private company. While it is well worth considering the different groups that own a company, there are other factors that are even more important. For instance, we've identified 3 warning signs for AUTO1 Group (2 make us uncomfortable) that you should be aware of. If you would prefer discover what analysts are predicting in terms of future growth, do not miss this free report on analyst forecasts. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store