New credit card rules in India: recurring card payments to be affected
economictimes.indiatimes.com
economictimes.indiatimes.com
Here's my story with nytimes today. There's no cancellation button in the app or the website. There's a "chat with agent"option, but it doesn't work. So they ask you to call an agent, on the phone.
After ten minutes of being "next in line", I get to speak to someone. He doesn't let me cancel, but takes down my details and transfers to "Management".
I was seventh in line. But after 10 mins, I was eighth in line. After 12 mins, I was ninth in line. I was finally able to get hold of someone and cancel it, after holding for 25 minutes.
This should be illegal.
In the meantime, they refused to even accept my phone call as a request to cancel. I was charged for three extra months, until I finally paid $100+ round trip to Uber to their location and cancel in person.
LA Fitness is a soulless leech, and the fact that company is allowed to stay in business is testament to a corrupt government system.
Yeah, but my ability to cancel is also governed by contract, not by their arbitrary policies around it. Unless the contract explicitly says otherwise, an email, chat, or phone call saying "I'm cancelling" is sufficient notice.
This would not constitute legal notice under most contracts. There will be termination instructions. Often involving mailing a letter. But almost no contract technically permits termination via phone call.
For all my web/app/software products, including streaming video services, I can cancel within the site/app. My cellphone provider is the only one that specifies a phone call.
Even the New York Times TOS says a chat with an online agent is sufficient, and that's one of the ones being complained about in this thread.
I don't think I've ever seen "mailing a letter" required outside of a few unethical gyms.
I noticed it when I still got a charge. I then initiated a chargeback with the credit card company.
Seems like this is common enough with them that they quickly gave me my money back.
I had to do the same thing with the Economist.
[0]https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/companies-mu...
After that chargeback until they get the point.
A caveat is that one should be aware of how binding one's agreement with a business is, and whether a simple card cancellation will make the problem go away or become worse (collections).
I think major selling point was preventing fraud, and it was a hassle for a consumer. I.e. consumer have to proactively generate virtual CC every time they pay over the Internet. Which is a pain point especially on mobile. Zero liability solved the problem for the majority of users with less friction.
With regards to subscriptions virtual credit cards are not always a solution. If you have signed a contract and then your card "expired" it doesn't magically make your contract void. I know that gyms will keep billing you and eventually will sell you to collectors.
Blocking the payments can still be a good idea—money you have in hand is worth far more than the dubious hope of a refund—but you should also keep clear documentation showing that you cancelled your subscription following the specific steps required by the contract before stopping payments.
Not a good experience.
Provided on the card provider end.
It should. But what sort of payment processor does NYT use? Isn't it possible to block/cancel/prevent their charge from your bank's end?
While he was doing that I told him to make sure he just cancelled the newspaper, not my separate subscription to the crossword puzzle.
I told him I realized I was getting a 50% discount on the puzzle because of my newspaper subscription and understood I'd lose that.
He informed me that no, I would not lose the discount. The deal is a discount when you purchase a puzzle subscription if you also have a newspaper subscription. As long as my auto-renew on the puzzle subscription keeps working, it keeps renewing at that rate. And indeed it has kept doing so.
Bonus: I also cancelled DirecTV several years ago, with no problem, when they had a reputation of being very hard to cancel.
I called, said I needed to cancel, and they asked why. I explained that I loved their service, but my Sprint DSL really sucked. Comcast had just expanded to my neighborhood and so I was dropping Sprint DSL for Comcast internet. I can get a much better deal with Comcast if I get a bundle, so I was going for the Comcast Triple Play (internet, phone, TV). Hence, no more need for DirecTV (but if a decent non-Comcast internet service came to my neighborhood I'd probably switch to that and come back to DirecTV).
They cancelled me then with no hassle.
This is fundamentally wrong. We need this kind of rule in USA too, so, companies cannot exploit their customers.
Canceling should not be more complicated than signing up. If I can sign up in 30 seconds with two clicks, why would a process with phone calls (with very long queues) be acceptable? Also, I hate questions like "why do you want to cancel?" it's none of your business!
I thought about signing up for NYT, WaPo, and other news sites to get access to some articles I was really interested in, but then I remembered how painful it is to cancel at some of these sites...
To this day, ACLU people text me every week or so to ask me to do participate somehow. No matter how many times I've asked them to stop. And since the texts come from someone different each time, blocking isn't a viable option.
Guess who won't be getting any more of my money?
I'd like to donate to charity but I don't want to have to setup an untrackable shell company in the Cayman Islands in order to do it without being harassed.
It wasn't exactly transparent, since the only place mentioning who to email was the "welcome" email I got when I signed up ages ago. But I was able to cancel by a single email to the address they'd provided.
The NYTimes is nothing more than a government propaganda machine these days, anyways.
(Downside is, they can ban you forever if the charge doesn't go through, but for services that do those shady things, I wouldn't like to be their customer anyway).
Re: the difficulty of unsubbing: GDPR specifies that disallowing consent should be as easy as allowing it. There should be similar law about online subs.
Someone bought me a Sirius XM handheld unit for XMas. I hated it, used it for a few hours, cancelled the service, and returned the unit.
2 years later I get a several hundred dollar charge on a CC for another year or two of service of Sirius. I call up the CC company, and they say before I can file a dispute I have to call Sirius and try to straighten it out.
I call up Sirius, explain, I only owned the unit for a few hours and that I had cancelled. And the customer-service agent said, "I understand. We don't care, we're billing you anyways." and hung up.
I called the credit card company back, and they (probably) didn't believe me, but the agent said, "look, I'll put us on a 3-way call with Sirius, try and cancel your service again and I will listen and we will see what happens."
So I went through the same process again, and again Sirius literally said, "We understand you cancelled, there's nothing you can do."
After the call, the CC company agent (I think Discover) said, "These people are crazy, I will take care of this."
These are the same places that write hit pieces on big tech for "abusing" users - ie, Apple's payment platform which DOES let you easily cancel ALL subscriptions that you sign up through them and reminds you to do so if you delete apps etc.
This is the part that baffles me. There's no "let me cancel". You are giving notice of cancellation by telephone as required. Clearly the agent understands why you are calling. Therefore you have given notice. Therefore the service is cancelled. Any further attempt to charge your card is fraud.
Of course it doesn't work this way in the US, since the cost of fighting this point there is more than the cost of your subscription. Therefore this kind of abuse is permitted there.
That way when I want to cancel I can cut off the card to be sure I wont get charged again “by mistake”
privacy.com is a good one
What NYT (and others) do is just ridiculous and unethical.
We don't really need a law for this nor anyone needs to implement a button. Visa, Mastercard etc. can simply run a service where all the transactions that are marked as "recurring" will have an associated button "Revoke payment authorization" in their app. Once you revoke it all future recurring payments for that authorization will fail. It should be the responsibility of merchant to ensure they have authorization before providing service.
This can be sold as "Peace of Mind"^(TM) service and merchants who opt into this can can proudly show it off. Those merchants who do not have this, might have to show a warning to their customers that it is not a "Peace of Mind"^(TM) merchant.
Further I am pretty sure Mastercard, Visa can easily see which merchants are problematic. I am sure SiriusXM, La Fitness etc. will be on the top of their list and they can create a threshold beyond which those problematic merchants will have to pay a higher transaction fee in order to continue or opt into "Peace of Mind"^(TM) program.
The real issue here is the the regulation. All Fintech companies are super scared to try anything new as the various federal agencies will make an example out of anyone who builds something that disrupts the market. Entire history of financial regulation in this country is about protecting the interests of the existing players only and all the existing players are mostly indistinguishable from each other. Rarely someone like Robinhood tries to disrupt and you can see how much shit the media partners throw on RH. While many of these media partners tell you how dangerous RH is nearly no one explains why Fidelity, MorganStanley etc. have such shitty and outdated sites and UX.
This was also when there was not really any possible home VOIP or landlines, and cell phone minutes were very expensive.
The only real solution was to buy prepaid xbox cards.
Source: I live in India and got an sms from my bank stating the same.
This makes my netflix subscription easy to cancel.. usually I used to be lazy to go and cancel but every month my account goes on hold! That's a life saver as I'm saturated with netflix now and it's wrong to make everything bloody subscription.
But this is India and we like to do things one day before any deadline expires. That explains the panic.
[1] https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=1205...
[2] https://support.stripe.com/questions/important-updates-to-rb...
This made me laugh. But rest assured, things aren't any better in the US when some regulation comes with plenty notice. (Thinking most recently about the Cures Act where healthcare info must be accessible to patient without putting up blocks; many healthcare providers only started thinking about it at the last minute)
This article has details of the actual regulation: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-why-au...
Every one had two years to implement the e-mandate system.[1] What does it say about Amazon, your phone provider and your card issuer that they haven't been able to do it in time and decided, instead, to pass the buck to you, the customer?
[1] https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=1166...
So yes circular is old but it's being implemented on 1st oct..
God knows how many reminders I will have to add and how much time I will have to waste every month paying these bills by hand now and I hope I don't miss any.
I can only wish like digitalocean, amazon google too provide provisions to add account balance so I can add money as failsafe.
So I'm OK with this. Either behave responsibly or get regulated. Sounds fair.
- reporting your card lost, requesting replacement
- (with Apple Card) requesting a new number
- disabling / locking the card temporarily during the period they'd try to charge you
- use a service that provides a "virtual" card for such vendors, and then just deleting it (e.g. PayPal Key)
Yes there is collateral damage in the process (other payments get dinged, you have to wait for a new card, etc.) but perhaps it would work, and you wouldn't lose money?
Can't remember the name of it, though.
From OP's relevant article link [1]:
> He adds that this directive caters to two problems. Discontinuing standing instruction to a merchant was a task earlier while some asked for a letter by post asking for the discontinuation.
> Moreover, credit cards were mainly used for recurring payments while debit cards weren't as much in use.
So, it would seem that the regulator is attempting to make it harder for businesses to lock customers into recurring payments they don't want, and to encourage debit card use versus credit card use. I imagine this is keeping in line with India not wanting capitalistic colonialism, which is why the Indian central bank kneecapped US payment networks [2] in support of their own instant payment system (UPI [3]). Developing countries don't want to pay unnecessary drag on their economic systems to rent seeking first world corporations, if they can avoid it.
[1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/banking/financ...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-57817618
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Payments_Interface
Perhaps the inability of the Indian framework to appropriately deal with fraud and other nefarious uses like misleading the consumer, etc is prompting such blanket measures.
In other words, is potentially throwing the baby with the bathwater, a good policy?
Regulator of course have to work with the tools they have, but here it looks more like they are preferring to take a shortcut.
Funny story: A couple of years back a relative of mine visited US on office trip. Staying in a mid-level hotel they were surprised to know that they can just walk-in hotel's breakfast buffet, eat as much they want and even carry fruits, baked item etc while leaving. Back in India, hotel would do 2 level of ID/ security check before being ushered to buffet area and carrying any food item outside is prohibited.
So customer and service provider both have high chance to be defrauded by party at other end of transaction.
Never run into the ID/security check in my years of traveling here. At best, it is a "which room are you from" to mark off in their list. Carrying food out - that depends on the place.
Many have not run into restaurant fraud where they ask unsuspecting customers into ordering off-menu items like mixed-kebab platter or some such and then check comes in for 2000 rupees for that item but I have been duped like that.
Same with hotel ID check maybe they do in high fraud regions where a group of people walk in confidently, looked the part, polished off meal and left quietly.
IMO, merchants should be required to have an obvious unsubscribe button on your account page. Or perhaps all recurring payments managed through the consumer's bank, so a list can be provided for easy "bulk" management.
But I have added the wrong link from the wrong tab. This new Safari is pretty confusing.
Here is a more relevant article - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/banking/financ...
- First charge needs a AFA and it will setup a mandate - Subsequent charges will use that mandate and work without 2FA - Cardholders need to be notified in advance of a debit and be given an option to cancel
What's breaking now for most services is handling the third part
the actual title of a submission is subject to HN guidelines, the current title [ndia bans all form of Recurring Card Charges] is in no way similar]
highly editorialized titles create assumptions and non sequitorial context before anyone else even reads the article. you should talk to dang about this at HN@ycombinator.com
The Indian Express article (from a few months ago, when the deadline was extended to Sep 30) details the changes with much more clarity: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-why-au...
The crux of the changes are to add an additional factor of authentication (AFA), notify consumers before any recurring charge, and allow them to easily cancel payments. This sounds like extremely healthy regulation, and I have no sympathy for merchants dragging their feet on this for years.
I subscribe to Netflix from my mobile ISP in India, and they've implemented it from day one. I get a message a few days ahead of the renewal every month, when the service can be cancelled before billing.
Example -
Enjoying Netflix with airtelThanks? You will be charged Rs. 499.0 for the period 31-08-2021 to 29-09-2021 in your next bill. To unsubscribe from Netflix, SMS STOP NETFLIX to 56111 within 4 day(s).
Really like this legislation simply because the cancellation ability is available pretty much every month!
It's also frustrating that they aren't legally compelled to in my jurisdiction :)