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

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

#521

Post by danlugo92 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:31 PM UTC

1shooner wrote: post #313

watchdogtimer wrote: post #299

This is one of the biggest benefits of using a virtual credit card from services like privacy.com or Capital One's Eno. Just create a card online specific to the service to pay for it, then cancel the card when you want to unsubscribe. Capital One lets you create an unlimited number of cards at no charge.

Have you done this before successfully? I wouldn't just stop paying for a service to without following the agreed-upon termination process, it sounds like a great way to get referred to a collection agency.

Use a prepaid gift card, give a pseudonym.

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

#522

Post by handrous » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:32 PM UTC

jjk166 wrote: post #511

Spivak wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm gonna need one concrete example of this because I cannot for the life of me think of a single instance where bundled subscriptions, "buying Showtime through your cable provider" shouldn't be required to allow cancellation through the place you bought it. Sure, it sucks day one that 3rd party sellers don't have cancellation flows but it's not an intractable problem.

You misunderstand, having the option to cancel through the place you bought it is perfectly reasonable, the problem is when you can only cancel showtime via your cable provider because that's how you happened to purchase it. For example, I recently purchased a new car. I had to go there in person and do a whole bunch of paperwork. While I was there, I registered my new vehicle, got an insurance plan for it, and finan…

Does... the rule prohibit other methods of cancellation?

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

#523

Post by aczerepinski » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

I suspect for many sites you could change your address to California and then cancel online. Sites have had to support CA cancelations for years.

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

#524

Post by bigmattystyles » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:33 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.

When they want you to call, tell them you’re deaf. Works every time.

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

#525

Post by throw10920 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

volgo wrote: post #509

Humdeee wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hold on here, does that mean that Cancel button only appears based on location?

This is why I always enter a fake address in CA :)

That doesn't work if they use your billing address, unless your billing address is in CA, in which case you're probably located there anyway.

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

#526

Post by sixothree » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:34 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.

We have the absolute worst of this world. If you leave a red light and travel near the speed limit (+/- 15mph) you _will_ catch the next red light. You can absolutely floor it and catch up with the next "pack" of cars and make it into the green light but you will be at the pack for the next light which will be red.

I hate it. I hate it so much. Travelling down an avenue for 3 or 4 miles is just painful. The worst is when there is zero traffic (say 10:30 at night) and you sit at red lights watching nobody pass.

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

#527

Post by mcronce » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #424

wil421 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a class action lawsuit against LA Fitness about sending letters to cancel. I guess they finally allowed it to be done in person but had you jump through hoops to find a manager. They “lost” my letter a couple times until I sent it certified.

There's a business to be had in generating and mailing those letters certified for someone. For $10, you can have it printed and mailed by Lob certified and still have a few bucks margin, without the customer having to leave their home. They’d then have the certified tracking number to demonstrate it was delivered. This should absolutely not be necessary, but is a shim until a regulator kicks gyms in the shorts over…

FWIW, https://www.mailaletter.com can do certified w/ return receipt, and there's also a service called Trim (https://www.asktrim.com) that can do cancellations for you. In my experience, some companies have explicit policy to not accept cancellation requests on your behalf from Trim, but it works for many.

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

#528

Post by machiaweliczny » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

codingclaws wrote: post #114

lagadu wrote: post #29

In Portugal the law makes it so you can cancel any service using the same means that you used to subscribe it, so if they support subscribing online, unsubscribing also has to be doable the same way; same goes for via phone, personal or whatnot. It makes sense, prevents service providers from making it too difficult to terminate a contract.

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.

In Poland it's similar (you can only work for yourself). It's not even taxed (don't know why). I guess NL and CZ has most liberal laws in this case.

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

#529

Post by ghostpepper » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

strenholme wrote: post #344

Since I live in California, which has a “click to subscribe means you must have click to cancel” regulation, this isn’t an issue for me. After the New York Times published their inaccurate hit piece attacking Scott Alexander and Slate Star Codex/Astral Codex Ten, I was able to cancel online just clicking my way through. I now subscribe to The Wall Street Journal, which looks to be the most neutral newspaper right now…

I eventually opened a case with VISA to get them to stop payment to the Wall Street Journal because every time I called to cancel, I got a message that their call centers were closed due to COVID. As far as I can tell there was literally no way to cancel for several months during 2020. I do enjoy their reporting as a more right-leaning alternative to the New York Times but I have learned my lesson and will never again subscribe to WSJ.

Meanwhile, the I have cancelled the NYT several times relatively painlessly (via online chat) and even been offered a discount to remain a subscriber, which I view as a much more consumer-friendly retention tactic.

If anyone from WSJ reads this (unlikely, ha), you should know that it does not matter how good your reporting is - if you use predatory tactics to prevent cancellations you will turn off many potential readers simply out of principle.

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

#530

Post by DrammBA » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

meshaneian wrote: post #440

8ytecoder wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In general "should" is a recommendation, not a requirement. "shall" indicates a requirement "should" indicates a recommendation "may" is used to indicate that something is permitted "can" is used to indicate that something is possible, for example, that an organization or individual is able to do something https://www.iso.org/foreword-supplementary-information.html https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt Additionally, y…

If you don't mind me asking, what's the point of "should"? Usually anything that is not a hard requirement is promptly ignored, so I'm not clear why is time devoted to create "should" statements.