Cancellation policies fall into two well-known failure modes of markets to actually indicate what they want: information asymmetry and inconsistencies in time horizons between counterparties.

You have no ability whatsoever to assign market preference to this without at the very least ensuring consumers are actually aware at time of purchase of the friction they'd face at time of cancellation AND the chances they'll want to cancel.

That's all leaving aside that a person's preference for Product A over Product B obviously does not mean that a person prefers every dimension of Product A over Product B.

That's not how the free market works. The free market works companies prioritizing profits over people. So what's "important" for people is only visible in the market when it's also profitable.

2. Competing on being easy to cancel is a bad thing, actually. However wins that competition is losing money. That's why you see the competition go in the other direction. As in, who can make the shittiest cancellation interface (Planet Fitness, btw).

3. People who cancel a service are cancelling BECAUSE of the service. Why would they go back to a service they disliked enough to cancel, if the service stays exactly the same? They wouldn't. Meaning, "good cancellation" doesn't count for anything.

So it doesn't help you retain customers, it doesn't help you get back customers you lost, and it doesn't help you get new customers.

There is no reason at all to require a market to give us permission to make a better society.