Consumers should be able to just NOT pay for a service, and then it's on the service-provider to turn off the customer's access.
I can't tell you the amount of services I've past up on simply because I don't want to (potentially) deal with an awful cancellation process, and then go through the hassle of charging back on my CC. It's just not worth the time -- and they know it and depend on it -- which is frankly disgusting. Invest some time in a better product...
Some consumers would want complete removal of their data after deciding not to continue paying for service.
how about this - I dont use my cards that often - maybe 20 times a week. i'd be much happier if i got a notification through a side channel with a proposed charge and I could click 'yes' or 'no'.
it makes alot more sense to me than having to poll my account to look for potential fraud and argue with the bank about re-issuing a card with a new number.
wouldn't that be simple? i understand that for some usage patterns that would be inconvenient.
the broader point is that I shouldn't need to expose personal information just to buy a tea towel, I shouldn't even have to give you my email address so you can start sending my helpful hints about how awesome your other products are.
Secondly, I don't know of ANY company that deletes customer data upon cancellation. I've worked at a few ecom companies now, and the marketing team would just LOL at that idea. Past customers are pretty much your highest converters. No way are you gonna get rid of your data on them.
MAYBE in Europe with GDPR. Even still, no company I've worked at does this even for European customers. I'm skeptical a meaningful percentage of companies do.
"Invest some time in a better product" is not an appropriate solution since consumers have different incentive processes and those incentives changes throughout their lives. There is a diminishing return on investment for the producer of the g&s and they have to find the right balance.
The process of increasing cancellation cost (e.g. time), inadvertently puts the onus on the consumer to do their due diligence prior to purchasing a product.
Maybe you feel differently. But know that a lot of people feel the other way also.
Apple Pay already does this via the "EMV Payment Tokenisation Specification":
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Pay#Technology
Anyone can implement it; it's not Apple-proprietary.
No need to do that manually.
What? Apple Pay does this. Oh they don't expose the numbers to you, but they use a virtual card at time of purchase.
In the case of Hover, I have performed a single authorisation, and it is now capable of performing repeat transactions against my card. There is no interface within Apple Pay (that I can find) to remove that authorisation, I have to ask Hover to do that.
In the case of Uber, I perform an authorisation for an expense before I know what the amount is, and I'm not required to re-authorise when tipping.
The Hover example is the problem. Not specific to Hover, but rather specific to the lack of virtual card management within Apple Pay.
Virtual cards by definition do not have to be single use, (un)fortunately.
The virtual card is also set up in such a way that it can only be used to make purchases through Apple Pay. Which makes it, unlike regular (American) credit cards, a 2-factor authentication system: Something you have (phone) and something you are (fingerprint or face).
That's a big part of why I use Apple Pay when it's available; it gives me a fair bit more protection against credit card fraud.
> When you use your phone to pay in stores with an eligible Visa card in Google Pay, we don’t send your actual credit or debit card number with your payment. Instead, a virtual account number is used to represent your account information – so your account details stay safe.
also i doubt you'd get any spending points.. which is kind of a big perk