Hacker News Reader

Comment by jedberg | Hacker News Reader

California law requires that you be allowed to cancel a subscription in the same manner in which you created it. So if they have an always available online form to sign up, they are supposed to have an always available form to cancel.

Technically the NYT is still in violation of the law, since I can sign up with out chatting with someone. But at least it's better than the experience for everyone else!

View on HN

I think your understanding of the law is more strict than it actually is. The text of 17602(c) reads:

> In addition to the requirements of subdivision (b), a consumer who accepts an automatic renewal or continuous service offer online shall be allowed to terminate the automatic renewal or continuous service exclusively online, which may include a termination email formatted and provided by the business that a consumer can send to the business without additional information.

Since you can cancel your NYTimes subscription via chat, that seems to satisfy the "exclusively online" requirement.

Section b is relevant though. It lays out some vague terms about how they have to provide service.

Like most laws, this one is poorly written and open to interpretation. The way I wrote it is the way it was conveyed to me by a lawyer who works on this kind of stuff, but of course we will never know for sure until it hits a court case.

Why isn't California enforcing this law? Is there any explanation?

Because people are still living in the streets in squalor and the state is already broke entertaining that and other programs.

I’m not being facetious.

That sounds like why they should enforce it! The mechanism usually involves a transfer of wealth to the offendee.

The law is mostly enforced against outright scams, not against legitimate companies that do pickup the phone or let you cancel.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com