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

Disney, Netflix, and more are fighting FTC's 'click to cancel' proposal

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 546 posts

Re: Disney, Netflix, and more are fighting FTC's 'click to cancel' proposal

#151

Post by AlbertCory »

If some service is worried that people will cancel in error, they can always send an email or several saying, "Did you cancel in error? Click to reinstate!"

This is your regular reminder to use a temporary credit card to subscribe to things. If they make it too difficult to cancel the regular way, you can cancel the credit card (and of course, don't use the subscription anymore).

If you're really worried about the impact of that on your credit rating (a non-issue, by the way), you can send a registered letter to the company canceling, and then monitor your credit report. If that does show up (which it won't), you have proof that you canceled the service.

But really, credit cards become invalid all the time, for all sorts of innocent reasons.

Re: Disney, Netflix, and more are fighting FTC's 'click to cancel' proposal

#152

Post by mostlysimilar »

glimshe wrote: post #7

I prefer that the government doesn't go too heavy handed with the rule and try to solve all problems with requirements such as maintaining detailed phone records. We don't want huge costs of compliance making it harder for small players to enter the market. I think the rule of "sign up online, cancel online using a clearly visible option in the account settings", plus the legalese to cover corner cases, would be a hu…

> We don't want huge costs of compliance making it harder for small players to enter the market.

A laudable goal in theory. In practice when was the last time a small player entered the streaming market? This mindset enables the massive entrenched corporations to abuse customers.

Re: Disney, Netflix, and more are fighting FTC's 'click to cancel' proposal

#155

Post by tuxychandru »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #133
tuxychandru wrote: post #119

Why is it still the norm in the US to allow companies to charge their customers whenever they please, without the customers having any control? In India, businesses are required to get a consent, at the time of subscription, to charge the customer on a recurring basis. This is called an e-mandate and requires multi-factor authentication to create. The card holder can cancel the mandate online, through their bank, wit…

When you sign up, you are agreeing to the contract ("I agree to the terms and conditions"). Those terms and conditions legally dictate what you are agreeing to and how you will be charged, and what conditions are necessary to break that contract. They aren't allowed to charge you whenever they please, without customer control, they have to abide by the contract. Unfortunately, most people don't read the contract, and…

This is what Netflix's Terms of Use says, "If a payment is not successfully settled, due to expiration, insufficient funds, or otherwise, and you do not cancel your account, we may suspend your access to the service until we have successfully charged a valid Payment Method.".

A customer will be well within the bounds of the contract if they cancel their mandate through the bank, as long as they also don't expect to have continued access to Netflix.

Even in the US, there is nothing stopping the customer from closing their credit card account, except that it is an unreasonably inconvenient for the customer. It is far simpler and IMO sensible to be able to revoke consent for specific purposes through my payment instrument. So why doesn't the banking system in the US provide this as an universal option to customers? After all, this is exactly what Apple facilitates albeit at a high cost.

Re: Disney, Netflix, and more are fighting FTC's 'click to cancel' proposal

#156

Post by sveme »

Germany enforced this a couple of years ago: if you can contract with someone electronically, cancelling this needs to be as simple as agreeing to that contract.

Annoyingly, a lot of companies try to work around this - I tried to cancel a newspaper subscription a while back and they didn't offer that. So I simply wrote a quick email. Then they requested to call me to discuss this and I had to answer via email quoting that relevant law. Then they accepted it. Annoying.

Cancelling Wow, Amazon Prime, Audible or Netflix is really just a mouse click (with Amazon Prime and Audible using some dark patterns to convince you to stay).

Re: Disney, Netflix, and more are fighting FTC's 'click to cancel' proposal

#157

Post by andsoitis »

synetic wrote: post #139
andsoitis wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Easy solution: impose crippling fines or maybe a little prison sentence here and there for extortion. Why not? That's what it is. How is it extortion? Who is being coerced and how?

You are correct on the pedantic point of whether or not it is “extortion” under existing laws. Laws can be changed and definitions changed. Or use a different term. The essence of the point is clear. Why nitpick on whether or not “extortion” is the correct word?

> You are correct on the pedantic point of whether or not it is “extortion” under existing laws.

Extortion seems like hyperbole to me. Canceling on Disney+, Netflix, etc. is extremely easy. In fact I cancelled my D+ subscription juts the other day and even though they prompted me whether I’m sure I want to cancel, never did I feel they were trying to trick me with dark UX patterns or making it overly difficult.

So on a spectrum of easy -> misleading -> coerced -> extorted, I am happy to report it was easy.

Re: Disney, Netflix, and more are fighting FTC's 'click to cancel' proposal

#158

Post by Swenrekcah »

glimshe wrote: post #142
Swenrekcah wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix is not a basic utility. The only thing they have in common are similar billing intervals. But that’s kind of beside the point. When you sign up for a subscription, they only commitment you have made is for the chosen billing interval. If it’s a month you’ve committed for a month, if three years then you’ve committed for three years. But you have not in any way shape or form committed to a single second beyond…

Not being a basic utility is not relevant for the legal implications here, as the renewal terms aren't tied to being an utility - that was just a familiar example. The renewal laws are clearly specified in the contract you accept when signing up for these services, for instance Disney Plus says: "If you do not timely cancel your subscription, your subscription will be renewed at the price in effect at the time of the…

Of course I realise the terms and they may even be legal someplaces.

But the basic reality is that none of these firms would enter into a contract with terms like these because they are outrageous.

Just think about it. The act of doing nothing over a certain short time period is supposed to legally bind you in a new contract and even with unknown pricing?

This is not business between equals and people behaving this way deserve all the crap they can be tossed.

Re: Disney, Netflix, and more are fighting FTC's 'click to cancel' proposal

#159

Post by GrinningFool »

dylan604 wrote: post #149
lolinder wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix doesn't have a special agreement with card issuers. Like most businesses today, Netflix uses issuer tokens instead of saving your credit card information [0]. This is a good thing —aside from reducing accidental interruptions (not a big deal for you and Netflix, but a huge deal for you and your power company), it's much more secure. Netflix should make it easy to cancel your subscription, but using an issuer…

So the reps on the phone that I spoke to lied to me? After talking with Netflix, I then called my bank, and they acknowledged this service exists. What you're on about acting like I don't know what I'm talking about is absolute nonsense.

It may be that the script provided to the rep was given because it's easier than explaining the concept of issuer tokens to the uninformed?

Re: Disney, Netflix, and more are fighting FTC's 'click to cancel' proposal

#160

Post by local_crmdgeon »

spacemadness wrote: post #134
tuxychandru wrote: post #119

Why is it still the norm in the US to allow companies to charge their customers whenever they please, without the customers having any control? In India, businesses are required to get a consent, at the time of subscription, to charge the customer on a recurring basis. This is called an e-mandate and requires multi-factor authentication to create. The card holder can cancel the mandate online, through their bank, wit…

Because the stock price must go up at any cost, and part of that cost is lobbying to remove both worker protections and consumer protections.

It's not that malicious. Product people work on this, and overoptimize these flows. They do this to get promoted.

That's it - it's just managing to the metrics gone wrong, writ large.

Post reply on HN