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

411–420 of 890 posts

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

#411

Post by makapuf »

ratww wrote: post #342
makapuf wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well a simple email would be too easy to forge. But I'm sure its not hard to setup something I "your account" page.

> Well a simple email would be too easy to forge. Email is how thousands of SaaS handle cancellations today already. > But I'm sure its not hard to setup something I "your account" page. That's the whole point of the subthread...

Email reception, yes. Email sending is different, you would need to check DKIM that the sender is really the one, and that has also some setup cost.

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

#412

Post by HelixEndeavor »

hwers wrote: post #251
xg15 wrote: post #167

> including an option that’s “at least as easy” as the one to subscribe Weirdly enough this sounds like a loophole. I can already see some companies trying to bullshit their way through an investigation: "Oh sure, we don't provide online cancellation, because our way to cancel is even easier than online:" * presents a way to cancel that is in practice more difficult than online *. I think either mandating that cancel…

> mandating that cancelling must be possible using the same workflow as subscription I'd rather not put into the law that strict a requirement on our UI design.

I would like to see 1 reason you would find that this UI restriction would be a bad thing.

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

#413

Post by JTbane »

onionisafruit wrote: post #223
xg15 wrote: post #167

> including an option that’s “at least as easy” as the one to subscribe Weirdly enough this sounds like a loophole. I can already see some companies trying to bullshit their way through an investigation: "Oh sure, we don't provide online cancellation, because our way to cancel is even easier than online:" * presents a way to cancel that is in practice more difficult than online *. I think either mandating that cancel…

“What’s easier than making a quick phone call? It’s certainly easier than getting internet access, typing a url into a browser address bar, validating a ssl certificate, establishing an http session, authenticating with your credentials then finding and clicking the cancel button.”

This is the most tone-deaf thing I have read today. Logging in to a website is miles easier than waiting hours in a phone queue.

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

#414

Post by istjohn »

speeder wrote: post #302
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.

I am from Brazil, and here speed limits are literally dangeorus. 1. In my city people mostly ignore speed limits, because often they are unreasonable. 2. At same time people are so used to the above, that they ignore speed limits in very unsafe places. 3. I don't ignore the limits myself since I am a new-ish driver, but I almost crashed multiple times, either because I was with my eyes too gluted at the speedometer,…

Your 2012 account name is oddly apropos.

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

#416

Post by ericwood »

ghaff wrote: post #270
john37386 wrote: post #194

I subscribed to a weekly meal kit. It was very easy to onboard and I liked the service for many months. My situation changed and I no longer needed their service. I wanted to cancel my subscription and it's impossible to do online. It's written in super small to call their happy representative. I didn't like this situation so what I'm doing is skipping the meal kit for the next 4 weeks. Every month I log on their web…

My very limited experience with Blue Apron was that it was easy enough to cancel. But pretty much all the meal services, as far as I can tell,work on the subscribe and then you have to cancel model. Which makes them pretty uninteresting to me. I might give a service a try for a week here and there but I definitely don't want one week in and week out. And I don't want to deal with signing up and then (hopefully if all…

For a very very long time (I don't know what it's like these days) Blue Apron's cancellation has been available online, but not linked anywhere on the site. Contacting support would either have them cancelling the subscription for you, or just sending you the link.

It was an extremely dark pattern intended to combat churn, which was a huge problem. Practically nobody working there liked it, but the orders to do things this way came from execs.

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

#417

Post by kortilla »

marcosdumay wrote: post #410
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

“A fee for protection” is not that. That’s the equivalent of hiring a bouncer.

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

#418

Post by nefitty »

GrinningFool wrote: post #337
chii wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another example is prostitution is legal but you can only advertise yourself. that's an excellent rule - because pimping should be illegal.

That's not a pimp, it's an Erotic Services Agent ~s

Wouldn't regulations be easier to enforce on agents and organizations instead of individuals?

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

#419

Post by throwaway0a5e »

marcosdumay wrote: post #410
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

One of the primary functions of a pimp is to provide muscle/thread of violence to dissuade customers from abusing the workers.

Whether and do what degree the arrangement between the worker(s) and the pimp is exploitative is more or less tangential to that.

Post reply on HN