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

531–540 of 554 posts

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

#531

Post by olliej »

olliej wrote: post #320
sonnyblarney wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I didn't realize PayPal could dip into my checking account any time they wanted to." EBay did this to me once, I think this is an American thing, doesn't happen here in Canada like that.

Oh yeah, this was one of the most insane things I experienced moving to the US. If someone has your bank account number they can withdraw money from it. For example the errands bank account authentication mechanism is to withdraw some money from your account, and then ask you how much they took. I honestly could not believe it. It gets better: if you have someone’s bank account number you still cannot transfer money…

Errands bank account = etrade, boo typo!

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

#532

Post by dang »

mehrdadn wrote: post #426
dang wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't take HN on off-topic flamewar tangents. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17466555 and marked it off-topic.

dang, could I ask you to review and provide some feedback on your evaluation? I'm very confused at your comment. I was asking if the parent was in fact referring to lying, and if so, whether this was legal. This was a direct response to the parent comment's suggestion that consumers like us should lie on the phone. How is my comment off-topic when I was directly asking about the legality of the parent comment's advic…

Probably I just misread your intent. It seemed off-topic and the sort of accusatory nitpicking that users vent on each other when they're feeling flamey.

If that wasn't what you meant, I'm sorry I got it wrong! Moderation is guesswork. We try as hard as we can to guess right, but definitely still get it wrong sometimes.

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

#533

Post by __jal »

mehrdadn wrote: post #431
__jal wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There aren't really that many things I can say to you, a private citizen, that are prima facie illegal. Most of them involve violence of some sort or deceiving you about something you're giving me money for[1]. That changes when talking to some LEOs, doctors about certain things in some places, swearing to facts in official contexts and that sort of thing. But generally speaking, I can lie to you all day long about a…

> There aren't really that many things I can say to you, a private citizen, that are prima facie illegal. I agree, but at the same time you probably wouldn't be interested in saying most of these lies, so it's difficult to use that as a basis for assuming the legality of the ones we might be interested in. > Most of them involve violence of some sort or deceiving you about something you're giving me money for[1]. Thi…

> Does "something" have to be tangible and does it have to have a clear monetary value in damages

IANAL, to be clear. But yes, fraud is generally defined legally as deception for "gain", which is usually, but not always, denominated in money.

Beyond that, like everything else in law, it gets complicated. Are you asking about civil or criminal fraud? Where?

Also, even if you have a case that is technically civil fraud (say, I tricked you out of a dollar) or criminal fraud (I overstated my income on a mortgage application by a dollar), for small-dollar amounts you'll find you have a lot of difficulty actually bringing a case/no DA will touch it, simply because it is too small to waste court time on.

Incidentally, that final point is why ATT and Comcast want to kill class actions. If the people they cheat can't band together, it is too much trouble for anyone to recover that $2.74 "Up Yours Because We Can ILEC Infrastructure Recovery Fee".

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

#534

Post by olliej »

smsm42 wrote: post #408
olliej wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah, this was one of the most insane things I experienced moving to the US. If someone has your bank account number they can withdraw money from it. For example the errands bank account authentication mechanism is to withdraw some money from your account, and then ask you how much they took. I honestly could not believe it. It gets better: if you have someone’s bank account number you still cannot transfer money…

Yes, though they must be a bank or have an agreement with a bank. Random person can't just do it by just having the numbers. And a bank can get in trouble if it allows shady clients access to ACH. > bank account authentication mechanism is to withdraw some money from your account, and then ask you how much they took In my experience, it is usually the reverse - they put a small sum there, and then withdraw it back af…

Nope no requirement that they be a bank. Plenty of places allow you to pay online by “direct deposit”, which in every country other than the US involves them providing you with their bank a/c details.

In the US you give them /your/ bank account, and /they/ initiate the withdrawal. Anyone with your account details can pay for something from your account, including to a service they can withdraw from.

Better yet fraud insurance covers credit cards, not debit or “cheque”. Specifically: if someone uses your bank a/c# you are responsible for recovering the money.

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

#535

Post by jake_the_third »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #523
jake_the_third wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because you want to make it difficult for customers to cancel. Explain to me, in detail, how you arrived to this conclusion from my previous statement. If anything, a business accepting robocalls from customers would make canceling easier. I await your explanation, s73v3r_.

Which is why you, as a business, would not accept those robocalls.

If I was a scummy business, sure but you're omitting the other side of the coin: making it easier for customers to do reservations. I still think that businesses would welcome robocall reservations (if they're reliable and efficient) just as they have the internet.

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

#536

Post by wepple »

jrowley wrote: post #357
dizzant wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did this happen to you? I've been considering the same, but switching accounts hasn't yet been worth the hassle.

You should be able to just disconnect your facebook account, and login via email, no?

You’d think so, right? Nope:

https://community.spotify.com/t5/Accounts/Change-from-Facebo...

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

#537

Post by wepple »

dizzant wrote: post #231
wepple wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify lost me as a customer when they forced me to use some ridiculous chat to explain why I was cancelling my account. I was actually cancelling to re-sign-up using a non-Facebook account as a paid subscriber.. Add silly friction and you get -1 customer.

When did this happen to you? I've been considering the same, but switching accounts hasn't yet been worth the hassle.

A couple of weeks ago. With the backlash against FB recently, you’d think theyd try reducing the friction of shifting from FB login to email, but apparently not.

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

#538

Post by gshulegaard »

briandear wrote: post #182
gshulegaard wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure it would hold up in the Supreme Court. Provided the law is worded strictly to apply to CA citizens / only when corporations are serving CA citizens there is little to make an interstate regulation argument on. And there is also international precedence (EU GDPR) which could guide court opinion. Maybe it's just wishful thinking but that's my $0.02.

GDPR isn't a relevant precedent as there isn't a precedent -- GDPR hasn't been challenged in court, not the least, a US court. GDPR also has no relevance for US interstate commerce. South Dakota vs. Wayfair overturned the Quill decision, and, the Quill decision would have been the controlling precedent in any constitutional challenge, based on physical nexus. However, that all changed with Wayfair. One of the key arg…

This is a very detailed response! I appreciate your attention detail, but I did want to address initial comment reading my comment as proposing GDPR as legal precedence.

I never intended to forward the notion that the GDPR would serve as precedence. Indeed in a judicial context "precedence" has a very specific meaning and a piece of legislature from an international body of government would not be considered legal precedence in a U.S. court. I chose the phrasing "guide court opinion" carefully to specifically avoid confusion with the legal meaning of the term.

I agree with your analysis of SD v. Wayfair in that this is not likely a piece of legislation that would make it to the Supreme Court on interstate commerce grounds (at least in a post-Quill world). But if it did I would speculate the argument would center around the need for online firms to alter their behavior in other States as a result of the California law. To which I made the leap to suggest that the GDPR, as a current event, and it's affect on altering firms behavior even outside of the EU would be something that would likely be referenced in a Court opinion. Although, if you wanted to find an example limited to the US, you could also refer to the current status of EPA car emission regulations to demonstrate a similar single state regulation altering firm behavior across state lines without running afoul of interstate commerce.

But at the end of the day you and I are in agreement, this would not have much of an interstate commerce leg to stand on.

P.S. For those interested in the South Dakota vs. Wayfair opinion here is a link:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf

I found it interesting like /u/briandear and it is especially relevant for the tech sector.

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

#539

Post by dheera »

gnicholas wrote: post #521
dheera wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah Comcast refused to cancel online about 5 times in a row despite me repeatedly citing their ToS which explicitly says you can cancel by e-mail in section 9b. The parrots on the other end kept repeating that they needed to verify my identity (Ehm, stopping payments should be sufficient verification, thanks.) I've long deprecated phone calls as a method for businesses to reach me. I don't know why businesses don't…

> The parrots on the other end kept repeating that they needed to verify my identity (Ehm, stopping payments should be sufficient verification, thanks.) I don't understand — how does stopping payments verify your identity?

Because I say I am going to do it, and then I do it, which requires me to authenticate myself to my bank. If the e-mail were sent by an impostor, payments would still work.

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

#540

Post by mehrdadn »

dang wrote: post #532
mehrdadn wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

dang, could I ask you to review and provide some feedback on your evaluation? I'm very confused at your comment. I was asking if the parent was in fact referring to lying, and if so, whether this was legal. This was a direct response to the parent comment's suggestion that consumers like us should lie on the phone. How is my comment off-topic when I was directly asking about the legality of the parent comment's advic…

Probably I just misread your intent. It seemed off-topic and the sort of accusatory nitpicking that users vent on each other when they're feeling flamey. If that wasn't what you meant, I'm sorry I got it wrong! Moderation is guesswork. We try as hard as we can to guess right, but definitely still get it wrong sometimes.

Yeah, unfortunately not. I meant 100% literally what I wrote as you see there, which was figuring out if the advice to lie like this was actually legal (and I had to confirm they were actually suggesting to lie, since it wasn't clear to me and otherwise the question would've been moot). It was a naturally succinct question so I left it like that instead of trying to worry about actively dispelling anything else people might read into it, but I guess that was a bad idea. It's fine though, thank you for clarifying.
Post reply on HN