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

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

#531

Post by ghostpepper » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:35 PM UTC

MaXtreeM wrote: post #460

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…

After reading the article on Pewdiepie I stopped thinking about WSJ as a serious newspaper.

Can you link to this article? A lot of people consider it a serious newspaper still so there is an apparent disconnect here.

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

#532

Post by garmaine » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:36 PM UTC

8ytecoder wrote: post #409

dhimes wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Everyone is responding with quotes from IETF and ISO documents. But this is a legal context, and it is not necessarily the case that they have the same technical meaning. I too wonder what the answer to your question is.

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

#533

Post by 999900000999 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:36 PM UTC

I think Match got sued for this, they go out of their way to stop you from canceling since as a business practice they'll show you bot messages before you sign up. Once you give them 40$ or whatever then you'll immediately see all your matches are fake.

This alone is already a problem, but then canceling is deliberately made difficult.

The problem is they've ( via their child brands like Tinder as well) made billions doing this. If you can run a business, make 10 billion dollars and then pay a 10 million dollar fine, you'll just pay the fines.

I don't have a good solution to this. I personally refuse to give my money to or work for companies in this space.

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

#534

Post by htek » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:37 PM UTC

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.”

2010's GoDaddy, is that you? They used to pull this, then you would stay on the phone seemingly forever until you got a (the?) CSR that would first try the carrot of more services for free if you just re-upped then tried to browbeat you into the deal if you still weren't convinced. Also, the New York times did this, I think you can cancel online now. There should be multiple ways people can sub/unsub, but if you sub in one manner, you should be able to unsub in the same manner without jumping through hoops.

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

#535

Post by waylandsmithers » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:37 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #482

Humdeee wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I believe for the New York Times it’s based on billing address. So if you change your billing address to California you should get the cancel button.

Wow. Maybe I'll actually try this. I've wanted to subscribe at various points but knew it would be basically impossible to cancel so never bothered

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

#536

Post by tombert » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:38 PM UTC

I remember about 15 years ago, I signed up for Real Rhapsody's unlimited music service. I tried it for about two months, didn't like it, and found that canceling required me call them on a weekday during business hours (ending at 4pm eastern). I was still in high school at the time, and this is pre-smartphone so it would have been hard for me to do this during lunch, so it was pretty hard for me to cancel. Eventually I had to ask my mom to impersonate me, call them, and cancel it, but it was an idiotic thing. How uncomfortable are you that users will like your service if you have to trick them into staying subscribed?

Granted, it was the Real corporation, I really should have seen crap like that coming.

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

#537

Post by jpttsn » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

eckesicle wrote: post #502

Meanwhile in Scandinavia: You are legally entitled to unsubscribe from any contract in any way that is most comfortable to you. [0] For example, you can: * send them a letter * send them an email * call them and tell anyone who picks up the phone * write it on a napkin and hand it to an employee All are equally legit and legally binding. Companies obviously do not want to deal with the manual overhead, so services ty…

[1] decrees that (but not how) consumers can cancel auto-renewing contracts immediately iff the business hasn’t informed the consumer about auto-renewal in writing.

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

#538

Post by arrosenberg » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:40 PM UTC

999900000999 wrote: post #533

I think Match got sued for this, they go out of their way to stop you from canceling since as a business practice they'll show you bot messages before you sign up. Once you give them 40$ or whatever then you'll immediately see all your matches are fake. This alone is already a problem, but then canceling is deliberately made difficult. The problem is they've ( via their child brands like Tinder as well) made billions…

> I don't have a good solution to this.

Break up IAC, which is an illegal combination, throw Barry Diller in jail for fraud and seize his assets.

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

#539

Post by b3morales » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:41 PM UTC

slipheen wrote: post #505

nobody9999 wrote: post #481

Dark patterns aren't just for cancellations. A couple years back, a friend bought me a one year gift subscription for Britbox[0]. When I tried to activate the gift subscription, the site refused to allow me to do so unless I provided them with a credit card number. Which, from a practical standpoint, makes no sense as it was a gift . I wasn't going to provide these wankers with my credit card number[0], so I then had…

That is unacceptable behavior, and I entirely understand you not wanting to condone it. For people who find themselves in that situation, one practical workaround I've found is using a service like Privacy.com which lets you generate dedicated Visa cards that you can pause or limit charges on

Unfortunately Privacy.com requires the generated cards to be paid by a bank account (rather than a credit card). So you have to be okay with them having your banking info.

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

#540

Post by evancoop » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

cblconfederate wrote: post #405

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.

Are the companies that offer honest service disadvantaged in the long-run? Sure, in the short-term, a captive audience is profitable, but eventually, this should harm LTV?