Comment by caymanjim | Hacker News Reader

Comment by caymanjim | Hacker News Reader

The FTC has been pushing back against "click to subscribe, call to cancel". Back in October, they released a statement against such practices, warning that they "may be illegal" or something along those lines (I can't find a good source and forget the details). From what I understand, it was a somewhat soft statement meant to serve as a warning against this dark pattern, indicating that companies may be legally liable, but not outright banning the practice. It read more like a warning shot to get companies to shape up or face stricter regulation.

I wish they would take a harder stand. If you've got one-click signup and don't have one-click cancel (fine, maybe you can add in a confirmation click, or even an immediate email with a confirmation link it it), you should be fined enough to make it hurt. $10k per impacted user or whatever.

Here's a random not-great article about it: https://www.birminghamtimes.com/2021/11/ftc-cracks-down-on-c....

The Economist still follows this dark pattern and it's pissing me off. I signed up for their print + digital, realized their digital content sucks, and now that I'm not commuting on mass transit anymore, I don't read the magazine enough to justify a subscription. A year later it auto-renewed because they require a phone call to cancel and I get sick of waiting on hold.

I really hope this happens in Canada as well. There's a trend of these subscription services (coffee, food boxes, cat litter, etc.) that make it impossible to cancel without calling, chatting or emailing. Worse than that, they don't let you cancel, but they will suspend the service for x months. Even worse than that, they don't even allow you to remove your credit card without contacting them which really should be against some consumer protection laws. How can they keep my credit card info and not allow me to easily delete it?

Worse than that, they don't let you cancel, but they will suspend the service for x months

Strangely, Netflix has gone in the opposite direction. At least in the U.S.

Pre-pandemic, I used to occasionally put my Netflix DVD account on hold for a month or two when I would be traveling. It was no big deal.

This past summer, I needed to put it on hold again, and that's no longer an option. Instead, you can only cancel the account now. Netflix holds on to your queue for six months in case you change your mind and sign up again, which worked a lot better than I thought it would.

I guess Netflix has proactive lawyers and human beings for managers, instead of whatever kind Amazon has.

My guess is that Netflix found people were more willing to pause, than cancel, and that the net result of removing pause left them with more revenue.

Netflix wants out of physical media. They're hoping you forget to sign up again, and, when you remember, realize your queue has disappeared and decide not to renew.

"Click to subscribe, call to cancel" is illegal in California. If you can get a company to believe that you're a Californian, either by giving them a different address and/or by using a VPN based in CA, their site will magically change from a snakepit of dark pattern BS to one that provides one-click cancellation. (And if it doesn't, they're breaking the law.)

Your comment makes it seem like the article is placing Amazon in the "click to subscribe, call to cancel" category.

It doesn't, and they aren't. "1 click to subscribe, 3 clicks to cancel" is hardly a burden, and it shouldn't be implied that it's in any way comparable to what the NYT/The Economist/etc do.

Would changing the subscription to a card that's about the expire work to stop the charges? Or changing it to a "virtual card" number and then canceling the card?

I'm not advocating for scamming any service provider but in this case I'd have to assume that an invalid payment would automatically cancel the subscription.

This ought to work, and I wouldn't consider it a scam in the case of a subscription service. Payment fails, cancel subscription, everyone's [moderately] happy. If you're using it to get out of services-already-rendered, that's scammy, I suppose, but if it's a service you didn't want and weren't using and would have cancelled if they didn't make it impossible, then screw them.

I pay monthly for a Digital Ocean VPS. I get charged at the end of the month, based on my usage, for services already provided. Trying to weasel out of that would be unethical. But the Economist charges me in advance, for an annual subscription, that I would have cancelled if they didn't make it impossible. I have no problem with changing that payment method to a dead card so that the next renewal attempt fails. I don't think that's unethical at all, and because they're doing evil things, I wouldn't feel bad even if they did suffer in some way.

Maybe, but legally the company could probably force you to pay if they want to follow up on it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com