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

FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 793 posts

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#231

Post by ajkjk »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #200
ajkjk wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that under the hood this does happen, but in the company's favor-some memberships will survive your credit card changing? There was a patio11 article about it which I can't find at the moment. (edit: maybe not. maybe it was a tweet? in any case I remember it being a thing)

I have never(?) updated my Netflix billing information, but I know it has survived many new cards/numbers. Which feels like it defeats the purpose of getting a new generated card.

well, the idea is that you have a contract with them and that determines the money you owe, not the actual card. There's some mechanism under the hood to update the recurring subscription to use your new card when it changes.

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#232

Post by johneth »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #96

It would be great to see the FTC go against predatory subscription services like Adobe. I'm fuzzy on the exact details, but I think they promoted a yearly subscription that was meant to look like a monthly subscription, where if you cancelled early they would charge you an exorbitant cancellation fee. I'm not sure how these new rules affect them. One recent idea I've had is that many online subscription services shou…

> One recent idea I've had is that many online subscription services should automatically pause if you stop using it.

That seems a bit fuzzy to implement, depending on what the service actually does. It's not always clear-cut, like watching a show on a streaming service; for example, what if the service does things in the background for the user too even if they're not actively 'using' it.

My compromise would be something like: if the user hasn't actively engaged with your service for X month(s), email/text them a reminder asking if they still want to be subscribed.

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#233

Post by metabagel »

cortesoft wrote: post #174
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #96

It would be great to see the FTC go against predatory subscription services like Adobe. I'm fuzzy on the exact details, but I think they promoted a yearly subscription that was meant to look like a monthly subscription, where if you cancelled early they would charge you an exorbitant cancellation fee. I'm not sure how these new rules affect them. One recent idea I've had is that many online subscription services shou…

Man, I remember when Amazon Prime first started, I signed up for the free trial to get free shipping on something. Of course, I forgot about it and didn’t cancel, but then I got an email from Amazon saying, “hey, you didn’t cancel your prime subscription but you also haven’t used it at all, so we are going to not charge you and cancel it for now. Here is how you easily restart your subscription if you end up needing…

How are long term, loyal customers going to provide the short term profits which are needed to goose executive bonuses?

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#234

Post by floatrock »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #189
pc86 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a great function of elected representatives would be keeping an eye out for these types of businesses that are societal "code smells" indicating something is wrong, and looking at the regulatory and legislative environment to see what would be changed to make those businesses obsolete.

Those who are pro-market probably consider the companies cropping up to be evidence that legislation is not needed (as the market is addressing the issue). I'm not such a person, fwiw.

yeah, it's a failure mode of the open market. "We've allowed services to exist that unnecessarily cost you money so the solution is more services that will take more money." If we're being honest, at some point the golden cow of Efficiency is undermined.

The societal ethics of Ozempic are an example of this. We've created policies and subsidies that flood the food market with unhealthy processed food to the point that the cheapest option is an unnatural amount of calories (compare US obesity rates to the rest of the world), so the solution is a pharma product that takes an additional cut of your wallet. It's an expensive solution to an expensive problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

The software analogy is it's always easier to slap on one more piece of duct tape tech debt than to do the difficult thing and refactor the whole thing (acknowledging that part of the refactoring difficulty is you're not guaranteed to end up in a better state than you started from...)

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#235

Post by CSMastermind »

candiddevmike wrote: post #177
_hcuq wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The problem is the current law. Which needs to be changed. Make these predatory contracts illegal.

I don't think this is a bad idea. Each month you would confirm whether you want to continue with the service, and if you say no or don't respond, it stops. If you think this would be annoying, then pay for a year (or more) in advance. This method would in theory reduce/remove the ability for folks to perform mid-month chargebacks under the guise of "I forgot to cancel".

I don't think you even have to be that extreme.

Just make it so that you can remove the authorization of vendors to charge you. You see a vendor charging you for a service you no longer want - click a button and remove their authorization to charge you.

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#236

Post by deanputney »

cogman10 wrote: post #175
thefourthchime wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, let's institute an actual price rule. I can't rent an Airbnb or book a plane ticket without being lied to about what the actual prices is.

"Fees" on top of the top line price should be illegal. It's just a way to smuggle in a 100% increase in the purchase price to get an initial buy in for a product. It is super scammy. Heck, I would even take this a step further and say that taxes as well should always be fully included in the topline price. If a company wants to add a breakdown of how much went to taxes, I'm ok with that. The sticker price should alwa…

Taxes should also be included in the advertised price, then. Just imagine!

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#238

Post by pbhjpbhj »

dspillett wrote: post #183
rachofsunshine wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels like one of those things that could be solved on the payment end with something like a unique payment ID for each subscription, rather than giving a CC number. Then you just enable or disable payment IDs (perhaps for a limited time, e.g., "create a payment ID that works for Netflix for the next three months but not after that"), rather than relying on vendors to decide whether they feel like charging you o…

It isn't something I've seen advertised by credit card companies here (UK) but in the US at least some offer virtual cards whereby you can give different vendors a specific virtual card and cancel that if they don't stop taking payments when you want them to. As much as I'm not a big fan of PayPal¹ I use that rather than separate credit card payments/subs for online purchases including subs for things like hosting ac…

My PayPal story (in short, search my comments if you want more detail) - I bought a cheap game (I contacted PayPal, who opened a case, according to their agreement with Steam (which I'm not party to). PayPal found Steam to be in breach of their agreement (PayPal & Steam's). I was refunded.

Then Steam enacted petty revenge against me, and continue to do so.

PayPal acted laudibly, imo, but there seems to be nothing one can then do about any revenge a company might take against a customer.

A hypothetical might be that you return damaged goods to Amazon, then they refuse to sell to you in the future because you demanded your legal rights.

A computer retailer appears to have done similar. I had to return goods to them that were broken on arrival; they refunded, but closed my account (I have assumed that this was because of the refund request). They do have a general right to drop a customer, or refuse service (outside of protected characteristics) but it seems wrong that "making a reasonable demand in view of legislation" (a device was broken when it arrived) is apparently an allowable reason for refusal of future service.

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#239

Post by the_svd_doctor »

danaris wrote: post #218
the_svd_doctor wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For plane that's pretty unfair. If you don't get any ancillary fees, the price you see is almost exactly up to the cent what you pay. Now if you get any extra, sure. But that's a different problem from Airbnb hiding 100% of the cost in mandatory cleaning fees.

The trouble is, without some overriding authority defining what it means to "have a plane ticket", what counts as "included"? Because anything that doesn't can then be considered an "add-on". Carry-on luggage. Meal/snack and beverage service. A pillow and blanket. A seat that's not a middle seat. Even the ability to choose your seat at all. Airlines that want to tighten the screws on their passengers can, in theory,…

I get you. AFAICT what's included for airlines is basically "get me from A to B".

There are usually ways to filter out by seat types, though, both on airlines websites and in places like Google flights. In my experience those are also pretty accurate.

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#240

Post by rsynnott »

kristofferR wrote: post #29
randcraw wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could ANYBODY vote against this?

It's "anti-business" (read: pro-consumer).

Tbh I don't think it's _even_ anti-business; if people were more comfortable with subscriptions, which this should achieve, they would be more willing to enter into them. It's anti-bad-business, granted, but you'd probably expect it to if anything increase commerce in the long run.
Post reply on HN