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

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

niemanlab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 890 posts

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

#401

Post by marcosdumay »

aristophenes wrote: post #316

I had to cancel my gym membership because I was moving, and it required me to send a physical letter. I did this, but found out later that somehow I owed like 2 dollars, so they didn’t count my cancellation request because my account wasn’t up to date (should be illegal). They continued to bill me the entire membership fee, but my credit card had changed, so they sent my account to a collections agency. Right when I…

Does your country have a small claims court? This is the exact situation you should sue them for reputational damage.

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

#402

Post by throwaway0a5e »

tempodox wrote: post #305
devilbunny wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'd call that a “dark pattern in the physical world”.

People will do all sorts of ideological gymnastics to justify screwing the public out of money when they money lands in government coffers ad the end of the day.

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

#403

Post by belval »

ghaff wrote: post #262
kieloo wrote: post #18

Same thing with The Guardian. Subscribed online and was then told I can’t cancel via email and have to endure a pushy sales call if I want to cancel. Similar experience with The Economist except it was via live chat instead. These experiences honestly make me want to never subscribe to a newspaper again.

The Economist I just didn't renew. Nothing beyond that. What is true is that, with a lot of magazines, to get the best rate you have to select an autorenew option and then they make it difficult to cancel. (That may be the case with The Economist; don't know.) In general, you're better off just paying a bit more and passing on autorenew unless you're sure you want to keep on subscribing.

Can confirm that The Economist requires you to chat with a human to cancel. The representative will basically try to get you a "new" deal to prevent cancellation and the whole process took about 5 minutes (with me just saying no to everything).

Still better than the Globe and Mail though, had to call and talk with them for 10 minutes while they tried to sell me a different subscription.

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

#404

Post by dahart »

evancoop wrote: post #374

There's something odd about legislation of this ilk. Virtually every comment here bemoans these nefarious activities, and the commenters themselves try to avoid companies that utilize these dark patterns. The market, therefore, seems to be working - the companies that pull this type of nefarious BS find their way into the dumpster of failed ventures (as they should!). Would a law, in effect, force companies to mask t…

> the companies that pull this type of nefarious BS find their way into the dumpster of failed ventures

What are some examples of companies that failed over this? All I’m seeing here are very large very healthy companies being named like NYT, WSJ, Sirius, etc.

Seeing anecdotes of a few people trying to avoid being scammed doesn’t demonstrate a functioning market. If anything, the evidence here is the opposite of what you suggest: that dark patterns are working on the public at large and companies can easily get away with bad behavior indefinitely if allowed to.

> Would a law, in effect, force companies to mask their unsavory dispositions?

How would that work here, exactly? If there’s a cancel button, then there’s a cancel button.

Regulation has worked well for many, many things. Companies sometimes do need to be told what’s not acceptable, and they have in the past complied once told.

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

#405

Post by cblconfederate »

evancoop wrote: post #374

There's something odd about legislation of this ilk. Virtually every comment here bemoans these nefarious activities, and the commenters themselves try to avoid companies that utilize these dark patterns. The market, therefore, seems to be working - the companies that pull this type of nefarious BS find their way into the dumpster of failed ventures (as they should!). Would a law, in effect, force companies to mask t…

the major difference is that so far, if a company provides the honest service, they are at a disadvantage. But since the law equalizes the process for everyone, they are not at a disadvantage anymore.

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

#406

Post by mbg721 »

linspace wrote: post #301
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.

Ah, lucky you. I read your comment on my phone and came to my desktop to type comfortably my rant. Have you ever tried to cancel a loan? The following story may or not apply to you. It happened in a small country called Spain: Some time ago I bought a car. They offer you a very nice discount if you, instead of paying upfront, finance the purchase. Why? I asked the seller, it makes no sense. He gave me a list of more…

In the US, financing is also a lucrative profit source for car sales, but I think prepayment penalties are less common.

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

#407

Post by mikeyouse »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #397
tzs wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mea…

Not being sarcastic, but what's special about the NYT crossword? Why not just go to a Barnes&Noble (or whatever) and grab a crossword book off the shelf?

The NYT crossword subscription gets you full access to their app which has every crossword they’ve ever published, and a bunch of other crossword-like puzzles.

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

#408

Post by wonderwonder »

bborud wrote: post #369
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…

Just out of curiosity: what would have happened if you had just stopped paying them after sending them an email informing them that you wanted to cancel?

Its the online version so they have my cc on record and charge me monthly. I guess I could have changed my cc to an invalid one but not sure if they have some sort of authentication process before accepting a new one, likely. If that was possible likely they would cancel it after a couple declined charges but you always run the admittedly small risk that they will just send you to collections which is no fun at all. Even if you are in the right you still have to deal with a ton of annoyance and try and get your credit restored if they report it to the credit agency.

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

#409

Post by 8ytecoder »

dhimes wrote: post #361
xg15 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, this sounds a lot better. Thanks for digging in!

I would like it better if the word "shall" was used instead of "should."

Aren’t that the same? I thought ‘must’ would be more appropriate.

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

#410

Post by marcosdumay »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #396
djrogers wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pimping has little to do with advertising, it’s a form of slavery. Nothing would stop a pimp from forcing his workers to be responsible for advertising themselves.

>it’s a form of slavery. Or a protection racket. Or just fee for protection. Depends on the specific situation in question. There's a wide variety of schemes that fall under the definition of pimping.

Those are variations of slavery.

"You work or I will make you suffer" is slavery.

Post reply on HN