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

The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 225 posts

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#71

Post by permo-w »

JohnMakin wrote: post #29
n_ary wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Number of people afraid to pickup the phone and talk to another human being instead of letting few hundred in forgotten subscription is larger than I previously thought. By that sense, without any data, I suspect that chargeback amount is wayyyy smaller headache compared to txn fees from forgotten uncancelled subscriptions.

It has nothing to do with fear. Have you ever tried to call in and cancel one of these services? If you're even able to find the right number to reach anyone, or after you've already waited an absurdly long time to do so, you'll be transferred around until you get frustrated and give up, or be subjected to extremely aggressive sales tactics trying to pressure you to stay on. I got to the point with one of those DNA s…

(in the UK) it really depends on your bank and even the type of card you use. the debit card chargebacks I did when I was with Natwest were always very simple. fill out a form, send it off, get a response by email. for the one CC chargeback I did I think it required a call and a lot more trouble. when I tried a (debit card) chargeback with a different bank, it was an incredible amount of trouble and then I think they rejected it anyway

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#74

Post by BurningFrog »

SoftTalker wrote: post #28

"If you can sign up online, you must be able to cancel online, too." That leaves a lot of room for the "Cancel" option to be buried in an obscure hard to find part of the website. I'd have hoped there was a requirement for it to be as prominent and as easy to find as the "Subscribe" option (and maybe there is, just not mentioned in this piece?)

I understand the sentiment, but this kind of thinking is why you have to click away a cookie dialog 50 times a day in Europe.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#76

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

fastball wrote: post #37
SoftTalker wrote: post #28

"If you can sign up online, you must be able to cancel online, too." That leaves a lot of room for the "Cancel" option to be buried in an obscure hard to find part of the website. I'd have hoped there was a requirement for it to be as prominent and as easy to find as the "Subscribe" option (and maybe there is, just not mentioned in this piece?)

Do you actually want there to be a big "Cancel" button in the top right corner of every subscribed service? I personally don't want that. Click to cancel? Sure. But perfectly symmetrical is not something I need and in many cases not something I want.

Yup

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#77

Post by andrewflnr »

tobr wrote: post #68
squigz wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP made no indication it was about this specific administration and not about government in principle.

It’s abundantly clear from context.

I don't think it was. Certainly that's a position that people have held since long before Trump.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#78

Post by nathanappere »

BurningFrog wrote: post #74
SoftTalker wrote: post #28

"If you can sign up online, you must be able to cancel online, too." That leaves a lot of room for the "Cancel" option to be buried in an obscure hard to find part of the website. I'd have hoped there was a requirement for it to be as prominent and as easy to find as the "Subscribe" option (and maybe there is, just not mentioned in this piece?)

I understand the sentiment, but this kind of thinking is why you have to click away a cookie dialog 50 times a day in Europe.

Note that you do not on websites that are not trying to use your data without your consent. Rephrased: the issue might not be the law.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#79

Post by dylan604 »

Angostura wrote: post #40
lenerdenator wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absurd if you believe the point of government is to be by, for, and of the people. If you see government as a way to enhance the ability of the owner class to enrich themselves, it makes perfect sense.

It’s almost as if the previous administration was focussed more on the former, and the current administration more on the latter. I guess you get the government you vote for.

[flagged]

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#80

Post by pc86 »

jfengel wrote: post #20
dspillett wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chargebacks might upset that being a big benefit, and being the firm that takes a stance for customer care could be good advertising fodder. Though I don't see it working unless they both do it in step which minimises the useful effect of that against each other. It could still be a benefit vs other payment methods, what is PayPal's policy on such things?

Visa and MasterCard suffer from charge backs already, and don't seem to mind. They try to avoid it with AI in the fraud department, and they push some of the cost onto the merchants. They could do so much more. We still don't even have chip and pin in the US. They seem to think that the current levels of fraud loss are cheaper than the business lost from stopping it.

Fees are not refunded and additional chargeback fees are levied regardless of the outcome of the dispute.

How exactly are they suffering?

Post reply on HN