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

Shutterstock to pay $35M over hard-to-cancel subscriptions

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 100 posts

Re: Shutterstock to pay $35M over hard-to-cancel subscriptions

#31

Post by koolba »

DangitBobby wrote: post #30
sanswork wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so you were on an annual plan to save money and when you cancelled you had to pay an exit fee to account for the annual discount. Seems reasonable to me. They gave you a months notice of the price increase and you didn't cancel until after it went into effect?

Why are you defending obvious theft?

> Why are you defending obvious theft?

Where’s the theft?

It’s perfectly normal to have a fee for breaking a lease. And that’s what an annual subscription paid monthly is anyway. It’s a commitment for an extended period of time.

If you could just stop paying and retain the discounted rate, what is an annual subscription vs a monthly one?

Re: Shutterstock to pay $35M over hard-to-cancel subscriptions

#32

Post by zurtri »

runako wrote: post #25

> Shutterstock failed to get consent to charge consumers’ credit cards before charging them for subscriptions This sounds like it should carry criminal penalties?

Well, if you or I did it - of course!

But when Corporate does it, we just handwave it way.

Re: Shutterstock to pay $35M over hard-to-cancel subscriptions

#33

Post by whyenot »

DangitBobby wrote: post #30
sanswork wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so you were on an annual plan to save money and when you cancelled you had to pay an exit fee to account for the annual discount. Seems reasonable to me. They gave you a months notice of the price increase and you didn't cancel until after it went into effect?

Why are you defending obvious theft?

Because it is not obviously theft. If you are getting a discount for making a year-long commitment, and then cancel, breaking that commitment, isn't a cancelation fee appropriate?

Re: Shutterstock to pay $35M over hard-to-cancel subscriptions

#34

Post by jjtheblunt »

runako wrote: post #25

> Shutterstock failed to get consent to charge consumers’ credit cards before charging them for subscriptions This sounds like it should carry criminal penalties?

Conde Nast is _horrible_ this way, tried for a second year in a row to charge me for Wired, which i do not subscribe to, could not explain where they got the idea i did, evidently had access through some dark pattern from years earlier to charge for something i must have bought as a magazine on iOS.

It took hours of online chat argument with the unfortunate real employee fielding such pissed customers, and threats of legal action, eventually citing their legal counsel by email address and full name (from the Conde Nast site), before they agreed to _not_ charge me whatever obscene yearly subscription would be.

They can burn in crooked hell after that nonsense. I wonder if the Reddit people are bothered by their owner, as I had a personally signed generally cheery note from maybe Alexis back when i first subscribed and bought a tshirt, going on 20 years ago i guess.

Re: Shutterstock to pay $35M over hard-to-cancel subscriptions

#35

Post by chatmasta »

sanswork wrote: post #7
whh wrote: post #5

Adobe needs to be next. I had to cancel a card because that was easier than cancelling Creative Cloud.

Adobe isn't hard to cancel if you sign up for monthly subscriptions. I do it fairly regularly because I need PS in short bursts. A lot of people sign up for discounted annual commitments though then complain when they can't cancel before the year is up.

No, the complaint with Adobe is that if you cancel, they terminate access immediately rather than at the end of the billing period. There is no explanation for this other than a predatory one; they’re betting you’ll forget to cancel by the time your bill comes around. The immediate termination is effectively depriving you of the next N months of access for which you already paid.

Re: Shutterstock to pay $35M over hard-to-cancel subscriptions

#38

Post by benoau »

dawnerd wrote: post #23
recursive wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a company participate in this? Most don't seem interested in making cancellation easier .

Because they like money and having different choices for consumers to give them money wins out.

But they make way more money implementing the dark pattern playbook. It's hardly an accident when subscriptions are hard to cancel it's a deliberate optimization.

Re: Shutterstock to pay $35M over hard-to-cancel subscriptions

#39

Post by echoangle »

Modified3019 wrote: post #6
chancek wrote: post #2

A great idea of a product is some sort of unified system for companies to correctly manage subscriptions. There needs to be standards for what makes a user flow acceptable or not when it comes to cancellations.

I use privacy.com virtual cards. I make a card for each vendor, and define a limit for it. I can kill the cards anytime.

Just because you revoke payment doesn’t mean you cancelled (at least in Europe). If you just stop paying, they will sue you to get the money.

Re: Shutterstock to pay $35M over hard-to-cancel subscriptions

#40

Post by [deleted] »

recursive wrote: post #12
chancek wrote: post #2

A great idea of a product is some sort of unified system for companies to correctly manage subscriptions. There needs to be standards for what makes a user flow acceptable or not when it comes to cancellations.

Why would a company participate in this? Most don't seem interested in making cancellation easier .

[deleted]
Post reply on HN