←back to thread

1737 points pseudolus | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
nerdjon ◴[] No.41859743[source]
> will require sellers to make it as easy for consumers to cancel their enrollment as it was to sign up.

I am very curious what exactly this means? Is it the number of pages or forms you had to fill out? People you had to talk too?

So if for my internet I had to have someone come out to install it before service would start could they argue that they require someone to physically come out to turn off service? Or a call since a call would be "easier" than someone coming out?

Could they make the signup and cancel process worse at the same time at certain times of the year if there is a certain time of the year where cancelations are high to justify a worse process? Or does this require knowing what the process was like when each customer signed up?

It feels like this could be fairly easily manipulated. Throw in an extra page during sign up just so they can add in an extra "please stay" page when you try to cancel.

> most notably dropping a requirement that sellers provide annual reminders to consumers of the negative option feature of their subscription.

I assume this means sending yearly reminders that a subscription is about to charge and how to cancel? This is fairly disappointing if so.

I really wish they just required what Apple requires on the App Store. It requires 2 clicks, clicking cancel and then confirm. No upselling since it all happens within Apple's Settings.

Then any yearly apps I always get an email about a week or so (not 100% sure of the timing) that it is going to renew soon with instructions on how to cancel.

replies(7): >>41859908 #>>41859934 #>>41860091 #>>41860228 #>>41860565 #>>41860760 #>>41863582 #
1. invaderzirp ◴[] No.41860565[source]
You're overthinking it. If there's any confusion, it will go to court, and reasonable humans will decide that, actually, the form being in a filing cabinet in the basement isn't actually reasonable.
replies(2): >>41863320 #>>41863702 #
2. FireBeyond ◴[] No.41863320[source]
> reasonable humans will decide that, actually, the form being in a filing cabinet in the basement isn't actually reasonable.

Like how multiple courts (up to the Louisiana Supreme Court) ruled that it was reasonable that when a suspect said "I want a lawyer, dawg." that police interpreted it as him asking for a canine who had been admitted to the bar, and since they couldn't find one, he had not made a valid request for counsel, and so they were free to continue to interrogate him without one, and not be in violation of his rights?

Or how about SCOTUS ruling that in order to invoke your right to remain silent, you actually have to state that you are doing so specifically, and that merely remaining silent doesn't mean you are ... remaining silent?

That kind of reasonableness?

3. consteval ◴[] No.41863702[source]
> it will go to court, and reasonable humans

We have an epidemic of overly-textualist, conservative courts living in an alternate reality.

Now only are these people unreasonable, they strive to be as unreasonable as possible, in order to project their political will of stopping progressivism, whatever that may mean to them.

Plenty of them are in the business of stopping regulation purely for the sport of stopping regulation, meaning regardless of what the regulation is.