Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeffbarg | Hacker News Reader

> "if you want to see the other applicants, you have to upgrade your account and pay $375/mo until you call them to cancel (I know, because I still pay $10/mo to keep my account on pause because I don’t feel like talking to people, and $10/mo is probably less expensive over 2 years than fighting with them to cancel my account is is worth, and they know it… fuckers)."

I hate sites that allow you to subscribe without talking to someone, but don't allow you to unsubscribe without picking up the phone. I'm surprised it's not downright illegal. I've found Privacy.com[1] is a good service for these kinds of subscriptions, because you can just cancel the card to avoid keep getting charged. Not sure if anyone has a better solution.

[1]: https://privacy.com/ (I am not associated with this site, just a user)

View on HN

From privacy.com terms:

>You grant us and our subsidiaries, affiliates, and successors a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, transferable, and sub-licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, prepare derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, and publicly display your Content throughout the world in any media in order to provide and promote the Services. You retain all rights in your Content, subject to the rights you granted to us in these General Terms. You may modify or remove your Content via your Privacy Account or by terminating your Privacy Account, but your Content may persist in historical, archived or cached copies and versions thereof available on or through the Services.

Google the first bit of that sentence. It's likely just some generic ToS they used. But yeah, still not good.

That said, I'm a happy user of Privacy.com It's great.

So what? Privacy.com pretty much just provides proxy card numbers for online shopping. What content are you afraid of giving them a license to use?

It just amuses me that such extreme legal arse covering can not be avoided even when you are called privacy.com. But you're right, I can't think of any nefarious purpose to which the history of my consumption could be put...

The excerpt, applies to copyrighted content created by you and submitted to their platform. So the question is whether credit card transactions are creative works or facts.

If credit card transactions are a creative work then you are eligible for copyright protection and this part of the terms of use would apply. However, if credit card transactions are facts (in other words if it is a fact that $x was charged to this card on some date) then they are not eligible for copyright protection and this section of the terms would not apply.

There is no way to know whether credit card transactions are creative works or facts until someone tries to claim copyright over one in court, however, to my knowledge that has not happened yet.

New York Times makes you talk to an agent to cancel, and of course, when I want to cancel, I had to wait in a queue to get someone on either Chat or Phone. Completely absurd and unacceptable. And naturally, when I got through, their chat system hadn't even provide my account information to the agent.

I've felt inclined to resubscribe a couple times when hitting their paywall, but remembering their consumer-hostile cancellation process has stopped me. I don't mind paying for things, but you need to treat your customers right.

I am pretty sure I subscribed via paypal. I can just cancel on the paypal end.

I thought California passed a law requiring businesses to allow you cancel your subscription in the same method you signed up. Maybe I misunderstand the bill as written.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

I think you're right, but from what I've seen this causes services to make a special cancellation process for CA residents while making everyone else still jump through hoops.

For example, there is no option to cancel a Wall Street Journal digital subscription on the web site, unless you change your billing address to one in California, and then a cancel option will appear.

So the WSJ has implemented an online cancel option, and then done extra work to make it available selectively depending on your address?

Somehow that doesn't really surprise me, but it does disgust me. And reminds me not to enter into any kind of customer relationship with them.

I made the mistake of subscribing to the NYT. After their cancellation process I've promised myself never to send them another dime in my lifetime. Meanwhile I've had stints of reading WashPo and the New Yorker and would happily resubscribe.

Someone needs to go tell classpass that they didn't do that for me. Fuck classpass.

Click on unsubscribe button.

You're not unsubscribed yet! Want to do a $15 dollar plan so you avoid a reactivation fee? ...no, hit button

You're almost unsubscribed! Can you tell us why? "Cuz I'm not using it, do it."

Now you're in a chat queue to talk to a chat representative before we let you go.

You're number 8 in line.

WTF?

The "that includes a free gift or trial" modifier might be a critical limitation.

I'd use privacy.com in a heartbeat if their TOS didn't have an arbitration agreement -- but given that they want to link to my bank account, getting rid of legal accountability is unacceptable.

A lot of these types of services sound really good until you actually dig into what their terms are. I don't see why I should trust a business that doesn't trust me.

I set up a dedicated checking account for Privacy.com, and linked it via routing and account number. I transfer money to the account I approximately equal to what I use with their service.

This way, a store gets a one-use card I can easily pause/limit/close, and if privacy.com screw up they're limited in how much they can draw.

Keep in mind that "cancelling" by expiring your card isn't treated the same as an actual notice of cancellation.

Some companies will send you to collections and ding your credit score for "missed payments", whether it's due to a cancelled card or any other reason.

I can see this in two ways, neither of which make such site look good:

1: One should be able to block their charges without cancelling a card - by what logic should they be able to take your money without permission? (This is not entirely a rhetorical question - can't you dispute credit card charges?)

2: A subscription is a sort of contract, so even if you block payments, they could claim you owe them anyway. But if it's a contract, why does one party have all the power in deciding how it may be cancelled? And what prevents them from making you jump through even more hoops, till cancelling is literally impossible?

> I'm surprised it's not downright illegal

It actually is illegal in some states (or is it Europe? Whatever). Email/chat count as valid "unsubscribe online" solutions.

It's illegal here in Canada under CASL (Canada Anti-Spam Legislation). They have to provide an "unsubscribe" link right in every one of the emails they send you.

https://www.fightspam.gc.ca/eic/site/030.nsf/eng/home

I think they're referring to actually cancelling the service, rather than unsubscribing.

In these cases, I've had good luck just emailing them with a clear notice that I'm cancelling my account (and telling them I think it's rude not to support cancelling via the same media used to sign up). I'm not going to go through your manipulative user-retention flow.

I also recommend privacy.com. The cards act as pre-paid cards, so I have seen some instances where a site did not take them. But probably 98% the service has worked beautifully.

It's a neat idea, but if you sign up for a service and just cancel the card rather than canceling under the terms of the contract, can't the company still legally attempt to collect on the payment if they want to?

I suppose most 10-20/month fees wouldn't bother to collect, but they might pester you a bit with automated emails.

Yes, you could still be pursued legally.

I've used Privacy for a while absolutely everywhere and never run into a problem getting the card accepted. Who doesn't take them?

I've had them kicked back on both Steam and Origin

You dont 'avoid getting charged'. The service provider provides you a service, charges you a fee for it, and you refuse to pay.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com