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

181–190 of 225 posts

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

#181

Post by const_cast »

arwhatever wrote: post #105

I'm listening to hold music right now, 30 minutes into my attempt at cancelling 3mbps home DSL service (not a typo), for which the price has crept up to $71 USD/mo. I first spoke with a customer service agent whose accent I couldn't understand very well. I have him ALL my account information. He mumbled something about being unable to forward me to the actual customer service agent (then what is your role, dude?), th…

> Right now the on-hold music is interrupted to sell me shit.

Jesus Christ, this is like those gasoline pumps that blare ads at you while you pump. On that little screen right above the plaque that says "you better not go in your car or this whole place will fucking explode or something".

Since when is it chill to hold people hostage for ads, let alone LOUD ads? I don't want to hear this!

PS: little tip for gasoline pump ads: one button always mutes them. Think it's a compliance thing. Almost never labeled, so just try all the buttons.

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

#182

Post by const_cast »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #103
vasusen wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen the results of these A/B tests closely on a major consumer site and I can tell you it definitely hurts the business to make cancelation really easy.

How do you A/B test your company's reputation as being difficult to cancel? You can't exactly serve up different word-of-mouth to different users.

This is the danger of data-driven decision making.

You can only gather a very, very small subset of all data. So now you're basing your decisions off of a tiny picture, so you end up with sometimes strange conclusions. Conclusions that, intuitively, make no sense. But the data says so, so I guess that's what we do.

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

#183

Post by reissbaker »

coldpie wrote: post #108
reissbaker wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On this issue there is no difference between the previous admin and the current one. The FTC voted 3-0 to postpone. Even though Trump fired two of the original five, if those two had both voted against postponing they would have still lost 3-2 and the same decision would be reached — and I don't think there's much evidence that the two he fired would've voted against postponing, anyway.

This is incorrect. The party makeup of the 5 people changed with the new administration. Lina Khan (D) left and Mark Meador (R) was appointed, changing the balance from 3(D)-2(R) to 2(D)-3(R).

Ah, I hadn't realized that. Still, given that it was 3-0, all three of the former FTC commissioners would have had to be unanimous against deferral — and given that all of them voted for deferral on Jan 19th [1] (the original deadline, when none had been fired and Lina Khan was still onboard) — I don't think there's much change here.

1: https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/10/ftc-delays-enforcement-of-...

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

#184

Post by p1mrx »

const_cast wrote: post #181
arwhatever wrote: post #105

I'm listening to hold music right now, 30 minutes into my attempt at cancelling 3mbps home DSL service (not a typo), for which the price has crept up to $71 USD/mo. I first spoke with a customer service agent whose accent I couldn't understand very well. I have him ALL my account information. He mumbled something about being unable to forward me to the actual customer service agent (then what is your role, dude?), th…

> Right now the on-hold music is interrupted to sell me shit. Jesus Christ, this is like those gasoline pumps that blare ads at you while you pump. On that little screen right above the plaque that says "you better not go in your car or this whole place will fucking explode or something". Since when is it chill to hold people hostage for ads, let alone LOUD ads? I don't want to hear this! PS: little tip for gasoline…

> gasoline pump ads: one button always mutes them

I don't think this is true anymore. I've pushed all 8 buttons on a pump near me, and it didn't mute. Almost purchased a car wash though. Thankfully my primary car is electric.

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

#185

Post by dspillett »

n_ary wrote: post #19
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?

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.

> Number of people afraid to pickup the phone and talk to another human being

It isn't fear of the call or the human being (though for some that can be part of the problem.

It is that some or all of these, and other irritations, will be true:

* The call has to be in their working hours, which is possibly your working hours too. I can get away with sitting on hold for a personal matter in work time, but many can't.

* The call will not be short…

* You will need to interact with irritating menu systems to get onto the relevant queues, and if you hit the wrong thing or an issue causes a disconnect, you will be right back where you started.

* The interminable hold muzak and/or staticy silence…

* When you finally get to that human they will have a long script, and it can be hard to divert them from it to just let you cancel. They will try to dissuade you from cancelling with various offers, and occasionally lies, no matter how much you insist that you just want to cancel.

* If you call at the start of a period they'll tell you that if you cancel now, you'll lose the remaining X weeks and try get you to call back later to not lose that “investment”. If you do call back a couple of weeks later you'll be told there is a notice period and you'll be billed for another period. There are other underhand tricks similar to this.

* After all the upsell/resell the first person you get won't be able to process the cancellation. You'll be put back into the queuing system for some more lovely muzak/static.

* The second person might not be able to either. Lather, rinse, repeat.

* All this time, any technical issue that causes a disconnect puts you right back at the start.

* If you get exasperated by all of this and start sounding to aggressive in your irritation, they will sometimes state that you are being rude (maybe I am, but not as rude as them wasting my time and trying to con me…) and hang up, meaning you have to call back and restart at a later time.

Some years ago I cancelled a magazine subscription, that I signed up for in seconds online, in a call that lasted nearly an hour. I've been very wary of subscribing to anything that needs payment details ever since, a stance that has done me well. The only way they will stop doing this sort of crap is if enough people simply stop subscribing to things because of it, or if relevant legislation without easy loopholes is passed.

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

#186

Post by thechao »

Suppafly wrote: post #180
zaphod12 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

most credit cards allow you to create a temporary card number. Create one, set it to be the billing method, and then revoke it. crazy that we need to resort to that sort of thing, but it does work!

Canceling your credit card doesn't magically get you out of owing money that you're contractually obligated to pay. It might get them to eventually cancel your service for non-payment, but it's not a guarantee. They might just keep billing you until it's worth thousands and then mess up your credit or pursue you in court for payment.

I've talked to my rep about the idea of "credit card cancellation": the idea that you should be able to go through your bank (or you credit card provider's web app) go to a recurring charge and click "cancel" from there. I'm pretty sure most major credit card companies would be on board; what's stopping them is the legal thicket of contracts that are in the way. What the CC providers need is a clear framework from the legislature to support them. The FTC ain't enough.

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

#187

Post by kevinventullo »

kylehotchkiss wrote: post #106

Ugh, this is something the current admin's electorate could greatly benefit from. How significant of a revenue cut was this gonna cause businesses to justify immediately taking an anti-consumer stance?

Call me crazy, but it’s almost as if the administration is not acting in the interests of its electorate.

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

#188

Post by frollogaston »

Suppafly wrote: post #180
zaphod12 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

most credit cards allow you to create a temporary card number. Create one, set it to be the billing method, and then revoke it. crazy that we need to resort to that sort of thing, but it does work!

Canceling your credit card doesn't magically get you out of owing money that you're contractually obligated to pay. It might get them to eventually cancel your service for non-payment, but it's not a guarantee. They might just keep billing you until it's worth thousands and then mess up your credit or pursue you in court for payment.

It might be worth trying if you keep a close eye on it, because there's a chance they cancel you after a couple of non-payments.

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

#189

Post by frollogaston »

mrguyorama wrote: post #171
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you A/B test your company's reputation as being difficult to cancel? You can't exactly serve up different word-of-mouth to different users.

Believing that "reputation" actually matters for American businesses is laughable. Craftsman tools are STILL riding the reputation they had half a century ago, despite being made out of the cheapest chinesium and losing their impressive warranty stance. The American consumer has demonstrated an absurd inability to consider past events as useful information to predict future results. Things continue to enshittify beca…

The "Toyota tax" is entirely based on reputation, and Amazon and Costco both benefit a lot from customer trust.

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

#190

Post by frollogaston »

lostlogin wrote: post #155
drdec wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Add in the random percentage increase in price when you try to buy something in a store from hidden taxes. It's not random. Those of us with a state tax are familiar with the rules and the rates. Those with a modicum of arithmetic ability have a pretty good idea what the total is coming to. Not saying "this is better" just that it is not as bad as you apparently think.

I’ve only been to the US as a visitor, and found the percentages varied between shops and goods. I’m sure there is a pattern, but it really does seem crazy that it isn’t shown on the price tag.

Yeah, there's unprepared food vs prepared food (apparently this is why Subway makes a big deal about toasted vs untoasted sandwiches), also bottle CRV, also sales tax can differ between cities. I wouldn't want those taxes secretly baked into prices on receipts, but they should at least be in the advertised price.
Post reply on HN