“Click to subscribe, call to cancel” is illegal, FTC says • Hacker News Board

Re: “Click to subscribe, call to cancel” is illegal, FTC says

#281

Post by tzs » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

mercy_dude wrote: post #173

Good. The worst experience I ever had was with NY Times when I wanted to unsubscribe I had to go through multiple call/chats with a person and it was almost impossible since it was hard to get in touch with one. I am glad FTC is doing something others are afraid to do.

I wonder if I somehow got on a super secret VIP list and get special treatment?

I called, got through quickly, told them I did not want to renew because I found that I wasn't actually reading it all that much, and they promptly canceled.

Somewhere in there I realized I should make sure they were only cancelling the paper so I told them I wanted to keep my crossword subscription and that I realized that this would mean I'd pay full price when my crossword renewed instead of the 50% off price paper subscribers get.

They told me it was indeed only the paper that I had cancelled, but told me I was wrong about the crossword price. The offer for paper subscribers is to buy a half price crossword subscription and that's what I bought. It remains a half price crossword prescription as long as you keep it.

Re: “Click to subscribe, call to cancel” is illegal, FTC says

#282

Post by wonderwonder » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

maskros wrote: post #277

wonderwonder wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange that this hit HN today. 2 days ago I wondered what the cancellation policy was for the WSJ and checked. At the time I did not plan on cancelling but after finding out that it was "call to cancel" I called at that moment. I cannot stand the policy where it takes 3 seconds to sign up online but you have to call in to cancel. If I can help it I wont give money to companies that do it. In WSJ defense (barely) it…

5 minutes is still 4 minutes and 55 seconds too long. There's no good reason it should take 59 times longer than it ought to.

No argument from me. They asked why I was cancelling and I told them it was because I had to call to cancel.

Re: “Click to subscribe, call to cancel” is illegal, FTC says

#283

Post by pnt12 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:24 PM UTC

bloak wrote: post #267

codingclaws wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portugal is logical on some stuff. Another example is prostitution is legal but you can only advertise yourself. I wonder what other countries have prostitution set up like this. Or the speed traps that just trigger a red light. Decriminalization of all drugs obviously too.

> Or the speed traps that just trigger a red light. This sounds interesting. Since when have they been doing this, and do you have a link to photos, video or a more detailed description?

It's a red-light with a speed warning and a detector - if you go over the allowed speed, it turns red, otherwise stays green forever.

But we also have hidden radars which are not announced.

Re: “Click to subscribe, call to cancel” is illegal, FTC says

#284

Post by analog31 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:31 PM UTC

mercy_dude wrote: post #173

Good. The worst experience I ever had was with NY Times when I wanted to unsubscribe I had to go through multiple call/chats with a person and it was almost impossible since it was hard to get in touch with one. I am glad FTC is doing something others are afraid to do.

My family just cancelled NY Times and our local paper, and switched to online-only for the NYT. It was quite a rigamarole. First, we had to call during business hours. Next, they went through a lengthy selling process before letting us cancel.

We were simply filling the bin with too much paper every week, and the local paper raised its prices. I can get Prince Valiant online.

Re: “Click to subscribe, call to cancel” is illegal, FTC says

#285

Post by patmorgan23 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:34 PM UTC

timfi wrote: post #275

bloak wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or the speed traps that just trigger a red light. This sounds interesting. Since when have they been doing this, and do you have a link to photos, video or a more detailed description?

I don't know when Portugal started this, but in Germany there is at least the concept of a "grüne Well" (literally a green wave). Simply put: if you drive at the speed limit you won't get any red lights. Sadly the german administration barely makes use of this as it doesn't make them any money...

Many cities in the US do this along major roads. They'll time the lights to maximize traffic flow which ussally means if your driving the speed limit you'll at least get through 3-4 lights before you have to stop.

Re: “Click to subscribe, call to cancel” is illegal, FTC says

#286

Post by why-el » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:35 PM UTC

I give them a card I grab from privacy.com that has a set amount, when I want to cancel, I set the card's amount to zero. They fail to charge it after a few attempts. The end.

Re: “Click to subscribe, call to cancel” is illegal, FTC says

#287

Post by koheripbal » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:36 PM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #264

mercy_dude wrote: post #173

Good. The worst experience I ever had was with NY Times when I wanted to unsubscribe I had to go through multiple call/chats with a person and it was almost impossible since it was hard to get in touch with one. I am glad FTC is doing something others are afraid to do.

Strange that this hit HN today. 2 days ago I wondered what the cancellation policy was for the WSJ and checked. At the time I did not plan on cancelling but after finding out that it was "call to cancel" I called at that moment. I cannot stand the policy where it takes 3 seconds to sign up online but you have to call in to cancel. If I can help it I wont give money to companies that do it. In WSJ defense (barely) it…

Getting the physical WSJ paper is ridiculous, but the digital subscription to the WSJ is great.

It's the only one I pay for happily.

Re: “Click to subscribe, call to cancel” is illegal, FTC says

#288

Post by datavirtue » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:37 PM UTC

devilbunny wrote: post #263

xattt wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends on your library system. I am under a provincial library system which is woefully underfunded. We get “flavours of the month” services that are likely trial versions offered to libraries before lock-in. Some of the choices over the years were Freegal Music, Ancestry.com and some sort of language training thing. Our Overdrive tier is probably the cheapest and I occasionally use my parents’ library card for…

Fully agree. My local library system is badly funded (as in, they let a building full of books rot rather than simply move them, and the main library has been closed for several years due to roof and sewage leaks) and we have no easy option to pay for a good one.

We should have funded libraries in the infrastructure bill. A rounding error would have been enough to supercharge them.

Re: “Click to subscribe, call to cancel” is illegal, FTC says

#289

Post by djrogers » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:37 PM UTC

devilbunny wrote: post #268

codingclaws wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portugal is logical on some stuff. Another example is prostitution is legal but you can only advertise yourself. I wonder what other countries have prostitution set up like this. Or the speed traps that just trigger a red light. Decriminalization of all drugs obviously too.

> speed traps that just trigger a red light Much better than what I've seen in my (US) city: speed limit 30 mph, but lights timed for 40-45 mph to get a continuous green light down the one-way street. Either you speed, opening you to tickets, or you stop needlessly on lights that are set for a faster speed than you are traveling.

Not sure where you are, but if that’s in fact the case, your city would be violating the law in at least California, and likely several other states.

Re: “Click to subscribe, call to cancel” is illegal, FTC says

#290

Post by glitcher » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:38 PM UTC

The article's framing is a little odd by putting the emphasis on news organizations. In my experience the worst offenders have been ISP's and phone providers. And it is such a widespread practice, it happens with everything from credit cards to gym memberships.

Another funny thing I'm wondering now, is if companies might find they are more profitable by eliminating these manipulative customer retention departments. Maybe try shifting the focus to making better products that customers want to stay with in the first place.