Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

niemanlab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 554 posts

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#71

Post by mehrdadn »

striking wrote: post #65
mehrdadn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not like that at all, because it encourages more services for people with disabilities, instead of taking them away. I mean you could argue the same for parking right? If everyone parked in the disabled section then you'd encourage having more such parking. And this also requires paying a representative more hours to deal with emails etc. It's not like there's zero cost.

They could use a thing called a website to help people do it automatically, which probably costs them less than the IVR or human rep on the phone. They just don't want that. Because they don't want you to cancel.

I'm not saying what they want is good, I'm asking if what you (or OP rather) want is legal.

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#72

Post by harryh »

mehrdadn wrote: post #42

Are you actually deaf? Or is lying to get exceptions that are meant for the disabled actually legal?

I did think about this, but I don't really think I'm taking anything away from the actually deaf.

It's not like a parking space where if I park in it, then it's unavailable for a handicapped person. There's someone's job to handle these requests and they have a limitless capacity. If anything, it actually takes less company man hours to respond to an asynchronous email request than a synchronous phone request.

I agree that it does feel a slight bit scummy, but after thinking about it I decided that I was OK with it. I can see how some others might think differently though.

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#73

Post by moftz »

mehrdadn wrote: post #51
13of40 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm hard of hearing." Prove that I'm not. At that point it's one dark pattern against another.

> "I'm hard of hearing." Prove that I'm not. At that point it's one dark pattern against another. First of all, he said "deaf", not "hard of hearing". Second ̶o̶n̶e̶, so you're fine with lying to get services you otherwise wouldn't if no one can actualy prove you're lying?

Even though it is a lie, it is a lie that is for the greater good. Maybe the company will realize how much time their call center employees are wasting filling out cancellation forms for the deaf and instead just make the form available online. They might lose some customers that might have stayed had a retention agent gave them free HBO for the month but there might be less time wasted on the phones with customers threatening to leave in exchange for free HBO. Either way, only people serious about leaving will leave and the call center will have less call volume and save the company money. In many areas, Comcast is the monopoly. You either have your TV or internet from them or you have nothing. If customers want to leave, then Comcast needs to react to the market and figure out what they are doing wrong.

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#74

Post by WillPostForFood »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #62
mehrdadn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't just lying though, it sounds closer to fraud to me (lying go receive services you otherwise wouldn't). It also sounds a bit like parking in the disabled section. And I don't know if there are legal ramifications for using services that are for the disabled but I wouldn't be surprised if there were.

Or walking up a sidewalk ramp, or using the headphone jack at the ATM, or using the handicapped stall in the bathroom, or taking the elevator instead of the stairs...

If you use the handicap stall in the bathroom because you like the extra space, and then handicapped person comes in who actually needs the rails, and can’t use them, isn’t that a bad thing?

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#75

Post by wlesieutre »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #60
mehrdadn wrote: post #42

Are you actually deaf? Or is lying to get exceptions that are meant for the disabled actually legal?

> exceptions that are meant for the disabled The cool thing about disability accommodations is that they're also super handy for the able-bodied, too.

For example: closed captioning on multiple TVs or in loud rooms; curb cuts for people pushing strollers, walking bicycles, using walkers, or pushing shopping carts. Not the intended purpose, but making things more accessible made them more better for everyone.

I'm not super up on the history of computer dictation and voice control but I'm pretty sure some of that was driven for use by people with mobility limits that kept them from using a keyboard and mouse. Now we all have voice controlled virtual assistants.

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#76

Post by humanfromearth »

I'm not sure there is a requirement to cancel subscriptions online as the article suggests. From the bill itself (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...):

> (b) A business that makes an automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer shall provide a toll-free telephone number, electronic mail address, a postal address if the seller directly bills the consumer, or it shall provide another cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use mechanism for cancellation that shall be described in the acknowledgment specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a).

I'm not a lawyer of course.

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#77

Post by JoeAltmaier »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #74
pavel_lishin wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or walking up a sidewalk ramp, or using the headphone jack at the ATM, or using the handicapped stall in the bathroom, or taking the elevator instead of the stairs...

If you use the handicap stall in the bathroom because you like the extra space, and then handicapped person comes in who actually needs the rails, and can’t use them, isn’t that a bad thing?

Sometimes the bathroom is busy, and everybody gets to wait for a stall. Its not the end of the world.

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#78

Post by moate »

mehrdadn wrote: post #64
c3534l wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parking in a handicapped spot takes resources away from people who need it. This gets around an unethical business practice designed to charge money from people who no longer agree to receive services.

> Parking in a handicapped spot takes resources away from people who need it. And this one does the same? Who says that guy going through the emails for isn't otherwise going to be helping someone who is actually deaf? > This gets around an unethical business practice designed to charge money from people who no longer agree to receive services. This sounds like the most legitimate argument here, if this is indeed une…

This is not a zero sum equation though. Responding to emails requires FEWER resources relative to having a service representative on a phone call. It creates a more efficient process, which is exactly why subscription based services don't want to do it. Friction in the cancellation process is desirable, because people won't put up with it and will stay with the service longer.

From- Someone who works in billing for a SaaS company.

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#79

Post by mehrdadn »

thelastidiot wrote: post #55
mehrdadn wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I'm hard of hearing." Prove that I'm not. At that point it's one dark pattern against another. First of all, he said "deaf", not "hard of hearing". Second ̶o̶n̶e̶, so you're fine with lying to get services you otherwise wouldn't if no one can actualy prove you're lying?

Profound question: can you act unethically against unethical people?

Yes? I don't see what's profound about this.
Post reply on HN