←back to thread

1737 points pseudolus | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.585s | source
Show context
TheAceOfHearts ◴[] No.41859989[source]
It would be great to see the FTC go against predatory subscription services like Adobe. I'm fuzzy on the exact details, but I think they promoted a yearly subscription that was meant to look like a monthly subscription, where if you cancelled early they would charge you an exorbitant cancellation fee. I'm not sure how these new rules affect them.

One recent idea I've had is that many online subscription services should automatically pause if you stop using it. For example: if I go a full monthly billing cycle without watching Netflix then my subscription should automatically pause and allow me to resume it next time I log-in. There's a ton of money that gets siphoned off to parasitic companies just because people forget to cancel their subscriptions or because they're too busy dealing with life. It might not be viable for all companies, but there's definitely a lot of services where such a thing would be possible, given the huge number of customer analytics they collect. Maybe give people the option to disable such a pause feature if they're really determined to keep paying for a service. But a default where subscriptions automatically pause if you're not using them makes a lot of sense from a user perspective. Of course businesses would probably hate such a ruling because it means they can't scam as much easy money.

replies(8): >>41860117 #>>41860279 #>>41860531 #>>41860859 #>>41860942 #>>41861870 #>>41862383 #>>41862650 #
arrosenberg ◴[] No.41860279[source]
> I think they promoted a yearly subscription that was meant to look like a monthly subscription, where if you cancelled early they would charge you an exorbitant cancellation fee. I'm not sure how these new rules affect them.

I don't think it's the same situation. What Adobe was doing was offering a yearly subscription, charged monthly. If you tried to cancel, it would ask for payment to either cover the rest of the sub or to cover the "savings" that the user had obtained by selecting an annual sub rather than a true monthly (can't remember what exactly it tried to charge). It was deceptive as hell, but it's probably not covered by this rule.

replies(1): >>41861412 #
megiddo ◴[] No.41861412[source]
I mean, maybe technically.

But the "its yearly with a cancellation fee" was not qualified in the sales information on the sign-up page. Maybe it was in the fine print.

Given that customers are quite used to a monthly fee is a monthly subscription model, it was disingenuous at best. Putting significant terms in the fine print doesn't exactly engender trust.

replies(1): >>41861902 #
llm_nerd ◴[] No.41861902[source]
https://imgur.com/a/ldhiEtf

There is no fine print. It is extremely clear and obvious. If you see a term called "Annual paid monthly", 33% less expensive than a monthly option right above, what possible other interpretation can someone have?

replies(4): >>41862102 #>>41862298 #>>41870048 #>>41870112 #
askafriend ◴[] No.41862102[source]
I'm glad you're bringing screenshots to the conversation because so often people just talk about what they feel without grounding it in anything.

What the screenshot makes clear is that you'd have to be a single-celled organism to not understand what you're signing up for...

The screen is extremely clear, upfront and even the supposed "fine print" is in huge font with any easy link to learn more.

replies(2): >>41864836 #>>41870056 #
1. megiddo ◴[] No.41870056[source]
This is not how it was presented when I signed up, 8 years ago. I am aware of the differences between monthly and yearly subscriptions with discounts.
replies(1): >>41871298 #
2. askafriend ◴[] No.41871298[source]
8 years is a long time in life and in business.