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

I analyzed SaaS billing dark patterns

quolum.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 190 posts

Re: I analyzed SaaS billing dark patterns

#111

Post by indus »

inetknght wrote: post #85
indus wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A failed card auth does not remove the obligation to pay. Most vendors write if off, and don't follow-up after a few emails. Plus, they don't want users to get pissed off and post a negative review. Many vendors have now optimized their billing flow to reduce write-offs. They start charging on the first of the month for the upcoming use, and then cancel the account if the auth continues to fail.

> A failed card auth does not remove the obligation to pay. Let them sue over it. They'll just love how the courts would rule in favor of a customer who clearly tried to recover their account in good faith and tried to cancel the billing in good faith and, failing both, canceled the billing in the only remaining way since the company provides literally zero customer-friendly options.

Definitely the customer has a case if there is an intent to cancel the service. But, just ignoring based on a failed auth may not shift the liability.

Infact, when disputing such charges with the issuer, the customer always wins if there was an attempt to cancel the service.

Re: I analyzed SaaS billing dark patterns

#112

Post by leveraction »

CPLX wrote: post #41
Plasmoid wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it actually work? Have you tested in in court?

Haven't made it to court but it would certainly be legally sound. Courts love certified mail and formal notices it's not even clear what counterargument they could have. They require notice, and we gave notice and can prove it. But in real life what it really does it get them to back off and go back to having a normal negotiation about what we do want to do for renewal instead of the bullshit attempt to mislead and t…

I am thinking the argument against would be that the company's contract with you was supported by consideration: they provide the software in exchange for your payment. You are then sending what is intended as an addendum to the original contract, but the company never agreed to the additional terms. In effect, it is an offer of a second contract that is not supported by consideration and likely never accepted by the company. In such a case it would not be enforceable I think.

Re: I analyzed SaaS billing dark patterns

#113

Post by heavyset_go »

The dark pattern I like the least is the one where providers do not let you set a limit or budget for charges to your account per billing period.

For example, I've yet to find a cloud provider that lets you, say, put a $200 a month spending limit on your account. The best we get is a notification system.

Re: I analyzed SaaS billing dark patterns

#114

Post by CPLX »

leveraction wrote: post #112
CPLX wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't made it to court but it would certainly be legally sound. Courts love certified mail and formal notices it's not even clear what counterargument they could have. They require notice, and we gave notice and can prove it. But in real life what it really does it get them to back off and go back to having a normal negotiation about what we do want to do for renewal instead of the bullshit attempt to mislead and t…

I am thinking the argument against would be that the company's contract with you was supported by consideration: they provide the software in exchange for your payment. You are then sending what is intended as an addendum to the original contract, but the company never agreed to the additional terms. In effect, it is an offer of a second contract that is not supported by consideration and likely never accepted by the…

It’s not an amendment to the contract it’s notice.

If the contract says you must give a non renewal notice by X date or you agree to a renewal then the letter is written notice. The trick is making it the same day you sign the deal and making it all inclusive.

It doesn’t change the existing contract it abides by it.

Re: I analyzed SaaS billing dark patterns

#115

Post by leveraction »

leveraction wrote: post #112
CPLX wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't made it to court but it would certainly be legally sound. Courts love certified mail and formal notices it's not even clear what counterargument they could have. They require notice, and we gave notice and can prove it. But in real life what it really does it get them to back off and go back to having a normal negotiation about what we do want to do for renewal instead of the bullshit attempt to mislead and t…

I am thinking the argument against would be that the company's contract with you was supported by consideration: they provide the software in exchange for your payment. You are then sending what is intended as an addendum to the original contract, but the company never agreed to the additional terms. In effect, it is an offer of a second contract that is not supported by consideration and likely never accepted by the…

"The trick is making it the same day you sign the deal and making it all inclusive."

I think the original contract is enforceable at the time it was originally agreed to. Coming up with additional terms, even if they were on the same day, wouldn't not change the original contract. Imagine signing up for a credit card offer and then sending a certified letter to the bank informing them that you will only pay a lower interest rate that you designate.

I think the stronger argument is the "incorporated by reference" argument, given the fact that those could be changed at a later time. The terms of a contract need to be clear, and any ambiguity would likely be settled in favor of the party to be charged.

I have always been suspicious of the "Click to Agree" box at then end of a long contract that no one, including the company offering it, has ever read. The problem is that there are so many (generally unlikely) contingencies that have to be accounted for. What other choice is there when there may be substantial liability in question?

Re: I analyzed SaaS billing dark patterns

#116

Post by tshaddox »

inetknght wrote: post #84
kevincox wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Credit cards act as a "cost" of sorts. Credit cards are a limited resource, it is not free to acquire more credit cards. By requiring a valid credit card you are basically relying upon the verification that credit card issuers do to prevent unlimited abuse.

> Credit cards are a limited resource > it is not free to acquire more credit cards If a user is malicious then they quite probably have access to malicious cards too. Moreover, you're locking out users who don't want to give you their card just to try a service.

There are probably a lot more casual trolls than there are straight up criminals with stolen credit card numbers.

Re: I analyzed SaaS billing dark patterns

#117

Post by [deleted] »

dinobones wrote: post #55
atgarone wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure that when you're analyzing SaaS transactions for a year (full time), you see a lot more data than we more-select-few-who-can-discern do.

You forget this is HN, where software engineers will go off on tangent talking about how "they could have designed the airplane rotor to not crash" or something equally ridiculous. Everyone here is an expert at everything, because they wrote a blog once, or since Paul Graham is perceived to be an expert on everything, they can be too.

[deleted]

Re: I analyzed SaaS billing dark patterns

#118

Post by notyourday »

HatchedLake721 wrote: post #95
notyourday wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unrestricted service at the highest plan level, 1 to 2 weeks, credit card not only required but is authorized for the plan price - do not settle transaction as it is still a free trial. This ensures: 1. Whoever tries the service at least theoretically met minimum qualification to be a customer - they have a credit card and can authorize several hundred dollars on it. 2. We get the real lead. 3. We limit the number of…

This person does B2B SaaS! Great comment and 100% agree. Do you ever offer to extend free trial for people who want to cancel, and do you convert them back?

> Do you ever offer to extend free trial for people who want to cancel, and do you convert them back?

Yes - but that's the sales reps job. If they think we have a decent chance of converting "no" into a sale after they reach out to the customer to find out what, if anything, made the customer decide not to become a paying customer, they can extend the trial.

In my experience the vast majority of the convertable free trial expiration without conversion is lack of time on customer's side -- the customer did not really use the product. So now our sales people actively approach those customers.

Re: I analyzed SaaS billing dark patterns

#119

Post by dec0dedab0de »

encoderer wrote: post #27

Of all the nasty things somebody can do with billing, I'm surprised the author leads with card-upfront trials. "Free trials should not require a credit card." This is opinion presented as fact. This is not a dark pattern. Totally unrestricted free trials are wonderful, you've invested a ton in your product and you want a prospective customer to experience everything. But there are legions of abusers and bad actors of…

A credit card for user validation is not necessarily a dark pattern. However, it has been abused by too many services to trick people into paying. Either by forgetting to cancel, or by having an automatic fee based on usage.

Re: I analyzed SaaS billing dark patterns

#120

Post by flerovium »

SilasX wrote: post #86
flerovium wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about effort. The seller is asking you to put in the effort to enter your payment info in order to use the "free" version of the product. It's an exchange. The seller benefits because there is less friction to paying later. The dark pattern is billing the card without consent from the user, or some weird implicit consent.

> The seller is asking you to put in the effort to enter your payment info in order to use the "free" version of the product. Yes, and they bear the cost of the users scared away by the extra step, so it’s sort of self limiting. > The dark pattern is billing the card without consent from the user, or some weird implicit consent. Yes, that’s valid to call out as a dark pattern, but the parent quoted the article as say…

This is a perfectly valid thing to ask a user; it is part of a common dark pattern, but that does not mean it is itself bad; it is certainly sometimes necessary.
Post reply on HN