California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

Post by zymhan » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 1:21 AM UTC

khc wrote: post #205

adrr wrote: post #133

This was already required in the Visa Merchant agreement. If you signed up online. The merchant must provide an online way to cancel which could be email, webpage or chat. If they don't just call up your card issuer and file a "canceled recurring" dispute as the merchant doesn't provide a visa acceptable way to cancel the subscription. https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/about-visa/15-April-2... Section: 5.9.8.2

so the solution to having to call a merchant to cancel a subscription is to call your card issuer to cancel a subscription?

Post by elm-tree- » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 1:24 AM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #214

Skunkleton wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I didn't downarrow you, but I think I can explain why you have been. You are conflating morality with law. Law can be amoral, and illegal actions can be moral.

Weird, because I thought everything I said was about the legality aspect, at least until other people suddenly started bringing ethics and morality into the discussion. Am I wrong about this?

Post by wittjeff » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 1:26 AM UTC

mltony wrote: post #246

wittjeff wrote: post #208

I've only used this a couple of times but I think it works: "I'd like to cancel my service. I'm going to say this really clearly for the recording, in case I have to subpoena this for evidence. I want to cancel my service, effective [date]. When I hang up this phone, I want there to be no financial relationship between myself and your company of any kind. None. I don't want any further communication from you other th…

But recording phone conversations is illegal in most states, so unless you live in a state where it's legal, they might know that you are bluffing.

Post by lotsofpulp » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 1:27 AM UTC

hoveringcto wrote: post #179

Simply telling the merchant I will do a chargeback has worked every time for me (provided it's a credit card charge).

Post by jake_the_third » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 1:30 AM UTC

bb88 wrote: post #89

rdiddly wrote: post #18

OK now here's an excellent use for Google Duplex. Using a robot to fool a person: annoying. Using a robot to fool someone annoying: fine!

Google has since changed this. Google Duplex will not "fool" humans any more. They announce that they're the "Google Assistant" calling on behalf of a customer. I think unfortunately what will happen is that people will just hang up on the google assistant because it's not a real human. It'll be kind of like what happened to the "glassholes". Maybe not as mean though.