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

New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 363 posts

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#141

Post by MBCook »

littlecranky67 wrote: post #127
dqv wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes > Subject: Information about Your Automatic Renewal > This is an automatically generated email from Nintendo for customers who have a Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack individual 12‑month (365‑day) membership set to renew automatically. > Dear [user], > Your Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack individual 12‑month (365‑day) membership will automatically renew soon. > ... > Deadline to turn off automa…

Because this is mandatory in the EU probably.

They know my US address. I have an American eShop account.

Why would EU rules apply?

Nintendo is just a decent company compared to most others.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#142

Post by mschuster91 »

IshKebab wrote: post #70
aczerepinski wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once wrote code that checks location before hiding/showing the cancel button. It’s really absurd that the nice experience exists on all subscription sites by now but you only get to see it if your state demands it.

[flagged]

At the end, someone will be there desperate enough to follow the boss's whim. Always.

That is why regulation is so important.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#143

Post by MBCook »

bkeyes wrote: post #57

Funny this should come up today. I just got a notice from my credit card company that Evernote just charged my credit card after 2 'successful' cancellations of my subscription each of the last 2 years, and the complete deletion of my account several months ago. Hopefully these will become more widespread - I'm not in NY or CA.

There’s a reason they were used as a poster child of a bad actor when the FTC rule was made a few years ago, before the current administration shredded it.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#144

Post by readthenotes1 »

ezfe wrote: post #123
aubanel wrote: post #113

Probably a great decision, but why/how can it be decided at a local level by a mayor, instead of a federal level?

why: because the federal level is not doing it how: by declaring it a law in that area

And yet an executive action is not a law. It's a dictate.

Course, one should never underestimate the value of a benevolent dictator...

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#145

Post by mschuster91 »

paulfri wrote: post #129
mmmattt wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mandate stipulates that they can get minimum wage, I wouldn’t call that a “regular” wage, and certainly not a livable one.

Seattle and its surrounding cities have among the highest minimum wages in the entire world (~$22/hour). You're maybe not renting a studio apartment by yourself but it is far from destitution.

A full-time job should allow at least for a moderate place of living alone, otherwise it's not a minimum wage.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#146

Post by tzs »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #118
gumby wrote: post #16

These rules are great but “landmark” seems like puffery, as California has had such rules for quite a while. Ironically that has meant it’s hard to unsubscribe from the New York Times except in California.

Oh, is new york in california?

Generally when a seller in state X in the US sells to a buyer in a different state Y the consumer protection laws of state Y apply.

Even if the seller in X does not have a presence in Y, and so you might think Y has no jurisdiction, purposefully conducting business within a state is sufficient to allow Y to assert jurisdiction in regards to that business.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#147

Post by socalgal2 »

sxp wrote: post #22
dghlsakjg wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fees on one time services are not what this is targeting. This legislation is not meant to address that, and wouldn't apply to that. They are going after recurring billing (that's what the headline means by "subscription"). It mentions things like gyms, online subscriptions etc. It would be pretty wild if they had managed to get service fees at restaurants when they were not at all targeting service fees, restaurants…

From TFA: > Rule from Mamdani administration ... targets ‘junk fees’ > The city is also targeting so-called “junk fees” that raise the final price of everything from apartments to sporting events, with a proposed rule that requires sellers to “advertise the total price for any good or service, including all mandatory additional charges and fees, up front”, according to a release shared with the Guardian.

The latest one for me is renting a new apartment, getting told it cost $XXXX a month, then being told I'm required to have $XXXXXX amount of renter's insurance at $XXX a month and oh, by the way, click here to use ours.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#148

Post by simpaticoder »

CodingJeebus wrote: post #48
gzer0 wrote: post #40

Another one that belongs on this list: AI-generated photos in housing listings. You can no longer tell what the property actually looks like, and the images conveniently erase the problem spots you'd only catch in person. False advertising is getting completely out of hand.

I agree, but how does one begin to enforce a ban like this? Bait-and-switch has always existed in real estate, which is all the more reason to do full due-diligence and inspect the property thoroughly and not just put in an offer sight unseen. If a seller is using AI to that extent, I'd be worried about what else they're hiding about the property.

>I agree, but how does one begin to enforce a ban like this?

Look to something that works to modify behavior: credit reports. Make it easy to report an actor for malfeasance, assume they are guilty until proven innocent, and force them to defend themselves to the agency. Since we invent these tools for evil, we may as well use them for good.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#149

Post by throwaway27448 »

tzs wrote: post #146
throwaway27448 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, is new york in california?

Generally when a seller in state X in the US sells to a buyer in a different state Y the consumer protection laws of state Y apply. Even if the seller in X does not have a presence in Y, and so you might think Y has no jurisdiction, purposefully conducting business within a state is sufficient to allow Y to assert jurisdiction in regards to that business.

> Generally when a seller in state X in the US sells to a buyer in a different state Y the consumer protection laws of state Y apply.

I've found the person who lives in California lol, no it does not work that way.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#150

Post by The_Blade »

brookside wrote: post #69
bkeyes wrote: post #57

Funny this should come up today. I just got a notice from my credit card company that Evernote just charged my credit card after 2 'successful' cancellations of my subscription each of the last 2 years, and the complete deletion of my account several months ago. Hopefully these will become more widespread - I'm not in NY or CA.

Bending Spoons acquired Evernote: "What is Bending Spoons? The little-known AOL and Vimeo owner that's now public" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48799966

yes, that is happening to me real-time, the article in the Economist reminded me (https://www.economist.com/business/2026/07/01/can-bending-sp...), right down to Evernote being the one they are attempting to gouge me on at best and charge illegally at worst. so i had a closer look at bank and PayPal GLs

i found similar issues with Paddle (attempted to quit), Proton (double charged), Splashtop (attempted to quit), and Bloomberg via Apple (attempted to quit) and the common thread is PayPal. never Stripe.

my PayPal account is ancient (2002) and knowing what i know about payments (perhaps a little) i believe there is something akin to a hole regarding legacy pre-auth tokens in a PayPal architecture which is old enough to run for the US House. at least Bending Spoons would be willfully exploiting such a hole, because after i refunded / cancelled, 9 days later they were able to charge again. PayPal also seems to have an open marriage with PCI-DSS / SOC2

Post reply on HN