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

California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

niemanlab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 554 posts

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#521

Post by gnicholas »

dheera wrote: post #505
FidelCashflow wrote: post #462

I pay for recurring stuff with a CC for this very reason. I had an insurance company refuse to cancel my insurance unless I physically came into their office all the way across town (would have been about two hours of my time when it was all said and done) to show them proof that I had insurance through another agency. I declined that request and explained that they simply weren't getting paid any more. I called the…

Yeah Comcast refused to cancel online about 5 times in a row despite me repeatedly citing their ToS which explicitly says you can cancel by e-mail in section 9b. The parrots on the other end kept repeating that they needed to verify my identity (Ehm, stopping payments should be sufficient verification, thanks.) I've long deprecated phone calls as a method for businesses to reach me. I don't know why businesses don't…

> The parrots on the other end kept repeating that they needed to verify my identity (Ehm, stopping payments should be sufficient verification, thanks.)

I don't understand — how does stopping payments verify your identity?

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#522

Post by gnicholas »

softawre wrote: post #484
jhauris wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CapitalOne offers the same service on their credit cards with a browser plugin. It also disallows charges to the virtual card numbers from any source other than the site it's associated with.

You can do this with (the awesome) Citi 2% cash back card as well, just use their normal website to generate virtual numbers.

Yeah I only wish it was supported in the mobile app also!

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#523

Post by s73v3r_ »

jake_the_third wrote: post #421
s73v3r_ wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you want to make it difficult for customers to cancel.

> Because you want to make it difficult for customers to cancel. Explain to me, in detail, how you arrived to this conclusion from my previous statement. If anything, a business accepting robocalls from customers would make canceling easier. I await your explanation, s73v3r_.

Which is why you, as a business, would not accept those robocalls.

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#524

Post by bb88 »

jake_the_third wrote: post #259
bb88 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has since changed this. Google Duplex will not "fool" humans any more. They announce that they're the "Google Assistant" calling on behalf of a customer. I think unfortunately what will happen is that people will just hang up on the google assistant because it's not a real human. It'll be kind of like what happened to the "glassholes". Maybe not as mean though.

Why? If I were a business that took phone orders, why would I care what's on the other end? As long as it's reliable and intelligent enough, I don't think people will mind. I know I wouldn't.

That's a good question. But we have to remember what happened with Google Glass.

Glassholes were inconsiderate google glass users that refused to take google glass off when interacting with people. Duplex will end up like Google Glass for a similar reason -- people will force other people to interact with robots.

I think if I'm a human on the phone more than a few minutes a day, I might take exception to that. Especially if more than a few calls come in that way and there are enough bugs in the system to make it annoying.

One particular countermeasure will be to require a credit card number (or some other personal information) for cancellation... which I'm not sure Google Duplex would be willing to hand out over the phone.

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#525

Post by phjesusthatguy3 »

burkaman wrote: post #273
dgudkov wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about just sending a notification of cancellation by snail mail?

Finding a stamp and a post office box is significantly more annoying than two emails.

That's the point of this law, isn't it? That canceling service should be as easy as activating it?

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#526

Post by smsm42 »

clan wrote: post #414
smsm42 wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charging people who do not need the service and not letting them cancel looks like fraud, certainly not a voluntary transaction of two willing individuals. I do not see any problem from the point of libertarian for the state to protect the right of a person who does not consent to a business relationship anymore to withdraw from it - just as it is true for any other relationship. Just as libertarians would not object…

Made sense until the last paragraph and everything turned upside down. "Fully inform" is that not simply what we in real life call "the small print"? Taking advantage of people is never ok in my book. If you think you're allowed just because you are a little smarter than us I would question your moral and welcome any basic consumer protection.

> "Fully inform" is that not simply what we in real life call "the small print"?

It depends. We can easily get into the sophistry of "what is understanding", "what's the nature of knowledge" and "how many gains of sand makes it a heap". But usually the most common, though definitely imperfect, test would be whether a random reasonable commoner would be able to understand it. I.e., if somebody is told "we have a contract for 12 months, for X dollars per month, if you want out earlier, you'd have to pay fee of Y dollars" and you say "yes, I agree" - that is voluntary transaction. If you are told "the price is X per month, don't worry about cancelling, it's easy" and then you have to jump through hoops and pay Y dollars because it was printed in unreadable font somewhere in the 2-inch pile of documents you've been given to sign - it's not voluntary, because average reasonable person wouldn't realize it.

> Taking advantage of people is never ok in my book.

Neither it is in mine. There is, however, a wide area of situations where some consider it to be "taking advantage", while others, sometimes including the individuals supposedly being taken advantage of, consider it a free choice. I am against paternalistic approach which says some people can define for other people what's best for them and must protect them from voluntary transactions because it looks to the paternalists like "taking advantage". On the other hand, if it looks for everybody, including the participants, as "taking advantage", and involves hiding substantial information that alters the meaning of the deal, then it's not voluntary. I know it's a more complicated position than fits on a bumper sticker, but life is complicated, so there's no reason not to have complicated positions.

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#527

Post by codedokode »

bruxis wrote: post #467
FidelCashflow wrote: post #462

I pay for recurring stuff with a CC for this very reason. I had an insurance company refuse to cancel my insurance unless I physically came into their office all the way across town (would have been about two hours of my time when it was all said and done) to show them proof that I had insurance through another agency. I declined that request and explained that they simply weren't getting paid any more. I called the…

I don't have enough exposure to the product (not available in my region) but I really liked the _idea_ of privacy.com where you can create a credit card proxy for every subscription you have. This seems extremely valuable for managing subscriptions, tracking your funds, and of course, some modicum of privacy where your original credit card is only shared with one party. edit: Seems like privacy.com is a direct-to-ban…

Managing subscriptions is what banks should do and not some third-party company.

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#528

Post by codedokode »

toomanyrichies wrote: post #510
bruxis wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have enough exposure to the product (not available in my region) but I really liked the _idea_ of privacy.com where you can create a credit card proxy for every subscription you have. This seems extremely valuable for managing subscriptions, tracking your funds, and of course, some modicum of privacy where your original credit card is only shared with one party. edit: Seems like privacy.com is a direct-to-ban…

I'm a frequent user and fan of Privacy.com, however I've had merchants decline charges when I provide a proxy card, only to have the charge succeed when I provide a real card linked to the same account as the aforementioned proxy card. I suspect that Privacy.com uses gift cards as proxies, and some merchants reject payments made with gift cards. If so, this could be why I experienced the above. If someone knows bette…

Digital Ocean also refuses virtual Visa card. Maybe there is higher amount of fraud with such cards or maybe they want a credit card so they can charge you even if you don't have money. Of course, I would never agree to this.

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#529

Post by mygo »

tacon wrote: post #264
mygo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually have a speech impairment (a stutter) and you’d think people would be willing to accommodate. I can speak just fine when I have complete agency over the words I choose to say, but it’s the absolute worst when I have to read out some long specific access code or account number and say it 100% correct. Stutter even once and they think I meant 2 P’s when I just wanted to say a single P. And then it becomes thi…

I suggest creating a form letter where you threaten to file an ADA action against them, as well as notifying your state's attorney, etc. Plus cc: the local TV station consumer reporter. When they give you static, they get a copy of that letter sent to their registered corporate agent, return receipt. Their lawyer has to handle all such legal threats. ADA actions are extremely expensive for corporations. People withou…

This would probably be my go-to from now on when canceling a service. Kind of sucks to have to pay for registered mail but sounds like it’s a sure fire way to cut through the bs and maybe that’s worth the postage.

I’ve once signed up for a service and I didn’t know beforehand that their “delete account” button would take me to a page telling me that in order to shut it off I had to email them at least three business days in advance. I don’t have a general issue with having to inform people to shut things off the old fashioned way like via telephone or email.. but that’s for when I had to communicate over phone or email in order to begin the agreement. Such as with a consultant or contractor.. Not when they made signing up a quick and simple online process and then want to make it difficult to shut off so they can squeeze an extra payment out of you.

So I resorted to CC-ing a fake legal@ email address in the cancellation email, thinking maybe they would think I’ve CC-ed one of my lawyers (I didn’t have a personal lawyer, but they didn’t know that). They took care of it immediately.

Re: California law requires businesses to let you cancel your subscription online

#530

Post by perl4ever »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #496
perl4ever wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think people grow out of the need to follow moral rules as much as you imply. Sooner or later, there comes a time when it is overwhelmingly in a person's interest to lie (or some other transgression). If they are purely rational, they will do it. If they think deeply about morality, they will rationalize why it is right to do what is in their interest. The point of inculcating honesty and other virtues is so…

Lying isn't bad. Hurting people is bad. There are many totally honest ways of hurting someone.

The way I see it, telling a "harmless" or "justified" lie can destroy trust, which can have substantial or even devastating consequences. Often one faces several choices, all of which may hurt people, and moral rules are a heuristic method by which people avoid the harmful effects of cognitive biases due to self-interest or logical errors.

None of this should suggest I think it's obviously wrong to lie to a stranger about whether you're deaf in order to avoid a conversation - that might be permissible according to generally accepted social rules. My point is more that when you start talking about deciding for yourself when to obey moral rules, you are on shaky ground, no matter how wise or logical you are.

Post reply on HN