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

811–820 of 890 posts

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

#811

Post by throw10920 »

dang wrote: post #724
throw10920 wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On a separate note. Why is it really hard for HN community to make a compliment? You can find a bunch of compliments in this thread, and others. Don't portray the "HN community" as a monolithic entity with a single will. It's not. And trying to guilt-trip the community into making compliments is bad form, really annoying, boring to read, and goes against the spirit of intellectual curiosity.

I agree with you otherwise, but please edit out swipes like that last sentence. It's not necessary and not in the spirit of "Be kind" [etc.] à la https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html .

My apologies, I'll rewrite it. [edit: edit window has passed, I missed it] Sorry for making more work for you, dang!

Can you help me understand what the best way to express the intent in that last sentence is ("this kind of statement is anti-intellectual and shouldn't be on HN", roughly) without being unkind? (feel free to email me, address is in my profile)

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

#812

Post by toomuchtodo »

mcronce wrote: post #527
toomuchtodo wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have been looking for something like mail a letter forever, thanks for sharing it.

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

#813

Post by SkittyDog »

cgriswald wrote: post #483
logfromblammo wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "unsubscribe" should only be offered after a customer has been charged. Before that, it should be "cancel" or "annul". For instance, if there is a "free trial" period, wait until after that expires, and the customer has been charged, before offering an "unsubscribe". But aside from the hair-splitting, yes, you are absolutely correct. If I have instant buyer's remorse, I should be able to click it away just as…

I don't agree. "Canceling" a free trial means the trial ends immediately. "Unsubscribing" during a free trial means the trial continues, but you are no longer subscribed so when the free part of your subscription runs out it won't automatically renew.

None of that language is has a standard legal or regulatory definition, across the US. They are not precise terms, at least not yet. They are frequently used colloquially in ways that contradict your suggestion.

I'm not saying your definitions are bad, or wrong... Quite the contrary, I think your ideas are great!

But the specific terms & definitions aren't what really matter, are they? We just need standard language, with specified legal meaning, that consumers can invoke to make service providers jump to task.

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

#815

Post by genocidicbunny »

powersnail wrote: post #735
kelp wrote: post #704

California SB-313 ( https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... ) was passed in 2018 and has this requirement: "... a consumer who accepts an automatic renewal or continuous service offer online shall be allowed to terminate the automatic renewal or continuous service exclusively online, which may include a termination email formatted and provided by the business that a consumer can send to the bu…

SiriusXM is the worst. My subscription came with the car, but luckily it wasn't auto-renewed. However, after my subscription expires, I got calls every single day from SiriusXM trying to get me to subscribe again. And each time, they used a different number. It was ridiculous. In the end, I just pick up the call, and put the phone in my pocket. They still insisted on calling for about half a year before giving up.

This is the one instance where I absolutely abuse the 'customer service' reps that call.

I had a similar thing with a previous car purchase -- Sirius would not get the hint that I had already canceled and didn't want to renew. At one point I stopped being nice and started being malicious. The calls quickly stopped after that. Amusingly, when I canceled siriusxm on the car I bought after, they never called once. I do so hope that means there's a note somewhere attached to my name that says "don't call."

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

#816

Post by bjoli »

nonameiguess wrote: post #744
bjoli wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sixt (car rental) did not follow these rules. The procedure was something like "write a letter to out german head quarters". I ended up making a GDPR request for them to first send me all data they had and then remove any data (including email addresses) they had on me. I will hopefully never have to use their services again.

Are you renting a fleet? How do you even subscribe to car rentals? Is this a thing where if you rent frequently enough, you get a discount to just pay constantly instead of per car?

The swedish laws apply to news letters as well. I rented a car from them in 2015. In 2018 I had enough.

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

#817

Post by jjoonathan »

somethingwitty1 wrote: post #771
Joeri wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is this common perception of companies as if they are entirely rational organizations, and every policy that we don’t like exists because it is profitable and benefits the company at the expense of the customer. But sometimes bad policies are just bad, they benefit no one, and they exist for dumb reasons. Maybe call to unsubscribe is one of those policies.

An opposite statement can be said with the same amount of authority though: There is a common perception that companies only create policies we don't like through accidents and unforeseeable outcomes, not by specifically crafting policies to benefit the company. But sometimes bad policies are malicious and designed to maximize profits, even at the expense of long-term profits and customer retention. Maybe call to uns…

The simplest bumbling incentive following often leads to exactly the same place as the most cynical machiavellian scheming.

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

#818

Post by ikr678 »

derefr wrote: post #781
idworks1 wrote: post #756

Anecdata (only because I don't have access to the data anymore). Customer satisfaction is so much higher when they get a one click unsubscribe. In fact, when the friction is so low, the customer is likely to start the subscription back. I say this as someone who worked in customer service automation. The worst customer satisfaction score with lowest rate of re-subscription is from companies that make it hell to unsub…

> Customer satisfaction is so much higher when they get a one click unsubscribe. I mean, that's pretty tautological: unsatisfied customers who become not-customers, aren't part of your metric any more! The lower the barrier-to-exit is for your customers, the more survivorship bias there will be in any customer-satisfaction metrics you're trying to track. When there's zero friction to quitting (incl. a high availabili…

You can have low friction exit pathways that still capture that resentment/feedback.

'We're sorry to see you go! Are you cancelling X because (price/UI/technical issues/moving/no longer need/etc)'

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

#819

Post by Retric »

Joeri wrote: post #759
idworks1 wrote: post #756

Anecdata (only because I don't have access to the data anymore). Customer satisfaction is so much higher when they get a one click unsubscribe. In fact, when the friction is so low, the customer is likely to start the subscription back. I say this as someone who worked in customer service automation. The worst customer satisfaction score with lowest rate of re-subscription is from companies that make it hell to unsub…

There is this common perception of companies as if they are entirely rational organizations, and every policy that we don’t like exists because it is profitable and benefits the company at the expense of the customer. But sometimes bad policies are just bad, they benefit no one, and they exist for dumb reasons. Maybe call to unsubscribe is one of those policies.

The third option of hurts the customer and company is also extremely frequent. This can be as low level as developers choosing tools to pad their resume, systematic based on internal metrics, or even very high level internal politics based on which policy ends up making someone or some group look good.

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

#820

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

csee wrote: post #772
MAGZine wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an easy thing to say because it's more difficult to disprove. You could say that about the NYT, Al Jazeera, NPR, CNN, etc etc. Of course the topics that an institution choose to talk about also biases it. If you spend all of your front page space complaining about unions and talking about business, that is a different bias than one who dedicates column inches to stories about the environment. Or different from…

"but certainly not what I would call neutral. The topic pits UAW versus Nonunion automakers." How is that not neutral? It's an unambiguous statement of fact that the tax credit is favoring unionized automakers over non-unionized automakers, and that this particular distortion/difference in tax credit has no environmental justification and is designed purely to help out unions.

> How is that not neutral?

the "news" headline is literally just a quote from only one side/perspective of the issue

Post reply on HN