Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

    (www.ftc.gov)
    1737 points pseudolus | 12 comments | 16 Oct 24 13:09 UTC | HN request time: 0.423s | source | bottom
    Show context
    ajkjk ◴[16 Oct 24 14:37 UTC] No.41859541[source]▶
    There are so many things like this that have needed fixing for such a long time. The fact that something is happening, even slowly, is so heartening.

    If your reaction is wondering if this is legal then you should be interested in the passing of new laws that make it unequivocally legal. Society should be able to govern itself.

    replies(7): >>41859610 #>>41859669 #>>41860003 #>>41860390 #>>41861087 #>>41861257 #>>41861766 #
    rachofsunshine ◴[16 Oct 24 15:11 UTC] No.41860003[source]▶
    This feels like one of those things that could be solved on the payment end with something like a unique payment ID for each subscription, rather than giving a CC number. Then you just enable or disable payment IDs (perhaps for a limited time, e.g., "create a payment ID that works for Netflix for the next three months but not after that"), rather than relying on vendors to decide whether they feel like charging you or not.
    replies(8): >>41860019 #>>41860074 #>>41860086 #>>41860101 #>>41860238 #>>41860349 #>>41860583 #>>41861481 #
    1. datadrivenangel ◴[16 Oct 24 15:16 UTC] No.41860086[source]▶
    The problem, is that not paying does not get you out of the legal obligation to pay. Most companies won't follow up because the cost isn't worth it, but there are definitely organizations that will go after you or sell your debts to collection agencies...

    The marginal cost to a gym/ISP of the remaining duration of your contract is basically zero, especially if you're not going to use it, and they can get a few more dollars by being a jackass about it. In aggregate the incentives dominate.

    replies(2): >>41860236 #>>41860735 #
    2. stevenally ◴[16 Oct 24 15:29 UTC] No.41860236[source]▶
    Yes. The problem is the current law. Which needs to be changed. Make these predatory contracts illegal.
    replies(2): >>41860321 #>>41860543 #
    3. conradev ◴[16 Oct 24 15:36 UTC] No.41860321[source]▶
    I don't think these sorts of contracts should be illegal. I think a lot of things around them should be, like gyms requiring you to go in-person to cancel, or offering a terrible phone service to cancel, or marketing it deceptively such that you were unaware it was a contract.

    But getting a discount in exchange for a longer-term commitment is often a benefit to consumers.

    I just paid Visible for a year of cellular service up front and it was far cheaper than paying monthly – truly a great deal. I was able to front that money now, but if I paid a slightly higher per-month price in exchange for a year contract, that would be the same but with less money required up front.

    replies(2): >>41860638 #>>41860654 #
    4. candiddevmike ◴[16 Oct 24 15:52 UTC] No.41860543[source]▶
    I don't think this is a bad idea. Each month you would confirm whether you want to continue with the service, and if you say no or don't respond, it stops. If you think this would be annoying, then pay for a year (or more) in advance. This method would in theory reduce/remove the ability for folks to perform mid-month chargebacks under the guise of "I forgot to cancel".
    replies(1): >>41860970 #
    5. cogman10 ◴[16 Oct 24 15:57 UTC] No.41860638{3}[source]▶
    There are contracts that are basically impossible to terminate and offer basically no benefit to anyone, timeshares is a key example of it.

    A problem with our contract law is that if you get anything out of a contract it becomes really hard to terminate if the terms don't allow for it (a peppercorn). With contracts now being written in dense legalese with multiple pages of terms and conditions, it's not really feasible to expect the common contractor to have a full understanding of exactly what they are signing up for.

    replies(1): >>41862540 #
    6. AlexandrB ◴[16 Oct 24 15:59 UTC] No.41860654{3}[source]▶
    > But getting a discount in exchange for a longer-term commitment is often a benefit to consumers.

    This is already framing it in marketing terms. You're not getting a discount but being charged an artificial price premium for less/no commitment. This can get especially obscene in places where gyms are required by law to offer monthly membership options but they charge a significant markup if you go that route.

    All of this has the effect of suppressing competition.

    replies(1): >>41861592 #
    7. pbhjpbhj ◴[16 Oct 24 16:04 UTC] No.41860735[source]▶
    Cancelling of a subscription payment, without simultaneously notifying eg continuation (such as through an alternate payment means), is a clear and unequivocal indication of termination of the agreement for which the payment was being made.

    A company has a simple avenue to avoid inadvertent cancellation, they just ask the customer "did you mean to cancel, please contact us by $date to continue your subscription".

    But that's preferring the citizen over business interests.

    replies(1): >>41861679 #
    8. CSMastermind ◴[16 Oct 24 16:25 UTC] No.41860970{3}[source]▶
    I don't think you even have to be that extreme.

    Just make it so that you can remove the authorization of vendors to charge you. You see a vendor charging you for a service you no longer want - click a button and remove their authorization to charge you.

    replies(1): >>41861309 #
    9. FireBeyond ◴[16 Oct 24 17:00 UTC] No.41861309{4}[source]▶
    Yet currently, we have the opposite, financial institutions will "helpfully" update your card details with merchants you have recurring charges with.

    Years ago at Key Bank I even argued with a teller and manager about blocking a recalcitrant merchant from charging our account, "But you have ongoing charges with them and if we decline the transaction..."

    Yeah, that's between me and them, you shouldn't be inserting into this to 'obligate' me to pay.

    10. conradev ◴[16 Oct 24 17:32 UTC] No.41861592{4}[source]▶
    It is absolutely not just marketing: https://commoncog.com/cash-flow-games/

    Jump to "Pre-payments in the Restaurant Industry"

    Money now is more valuable than money later, and guaranteed future money is more valuable than no guaranteed future money.

    11. bluGill ◴[16 Oct 24 17:41 UTC] No.41861679[source]▶
    If it is easy to cancel then you should cancel. However if it is hard have your credit card cancel for you. (not all will, but some will) The advantage is they work for you and can put pressure on merchants to make it easy so they don't have to be the middleman.
    12. kevin_thibedeau ◴[16 Oct 24 18:58 UTC] No.41862540{4}[source]▶
    A timeshare is purchasing fractional ownership. That's different than purchasing a service.