Originally Posted by
steve32
I believe the term people are trying to come up with is "gouging".
The State of Maryland or Montgomery County passed a then recent anti-gouging law when the gas prices started getting very volatile a few years ago.
The government indicted a small non-franchised gas station owner who was charging nearly twice the rate for gas as "everyone else" within a pretty wide area (mid-five dollar range, as I recall).
The owner's excuse was that he was planning to go on vacation for a couple weeks which meant that the station would be shut down during that time, not making any money, and he wanted to make the money ahead of the trip by selling gas at a higher rate.
That was open advertisement of the rate being charged, and potential customers had the choice to drive to another station with a different price, but he was still charged by the state for gouging.
Unfortunately I don't have the follow-up to this story--what the verdict was.
Steve32
First, "price gouging" refers to essential items (food, fuel, etc.), which reward points certainly are not.
Second, "gouging" occurs when there is a monopolistic situation, not when there are alternative sources readily available. Not only do many loyalty programs allow the purchase, transfer, conversion, etc. of reward currencies, but there are other means and services by which to accomplish this as an alternative to Points.com. Even if Points.com was the only means available, it wouldn't stem from a protected position - other companies may certainly enter the game if desired.
Last, just because a concept is illegal doesn't make it inherently wrong, evil, or even illogical. Laws that prohibit "gouging" actually make the market *less* optimal because high prices actually help to determine the most efficient use of scarce resources and also encourage suppliers to absorb additional risks and costs in an effort to increase availability.