I didn't downvote but streaming services could argue that they're paying for on-demand capacity that has to be available for all paying customers who could decide to stream at any moment in time during their subscription.

On a personal level I also think there's paradoxical social net negatives from overly-insulating people from their own poor decisions while in tandem raising barriers to entry for services (basically, why I choose not to live in California).

1. You're paying a subscription fee for _access_. It's irrelevant if you use the product.

2. It's insane to want the government to "protect" you from … not using Netflix. You seriously think it's okay for the government to force this?

This is unrelated to the topic of this thread.

I didn't downvote it, but I would imagine that it is a case of consumers needing to take responsibility for their own actions at some point.

Keep in mind that streaming services are sold as a reoccurring monthly service, it is remarkably easy to cancel service, and they fulfill the full month even if you cancel early. It is difficult to regard the those business practices as deceptive. (At least in the case of services that I have subscribed to.) This is very much unlike the horror stories that I have heard of for other subscription services, and have experienced in a couple of cases.