In Turkey, you can cancel any subscription you have through the governments app called "e-Devlet" which stands for "e-Government". It is an awesome system, a service making it hell to unsubscribe? Just cancel it through e-Devlet and if they don't cancel your subscription, you can sue them.
Though I think it only works for Turkey based companies, sadly.
For more context, prior to this, ISPs would force you to send them a cancellation notice over fax (which nobody has) if you wanted to cancel your subscription, even though they would come to your house to sign the contracts when first subscribing. There exists a law that states "cancellation can't be harder than subscription" and if you intend to cancel a subscription but an easier way is not provided, you aren't legally obligated to pay for the service anymore. Ask me how I know.
Also, "you can sue them" in this context means "you can use e-Devlet to sue a company online, without having to leave your house". It goes straight to your local Consumer Court, who asks the company to send in their defense and then the Consumer Council gathers together to reach a verdict. This total process normally takes around 3 months and you have to do absolutely nothing once you send the official complaint online, but some companies like to delay this procedure just because they can, by sending in their defense the last day before the deadline.
This seems like a great solution -- allow a centralized party to control the front end (and create an audit log), then transmit the intent to the service to act on.
I'd prefer to see it as a non-government, not-for-profit service.
But the ceding of front end control to services themselves doesn't work. We already learned that with email / unsubscribe.
Subscription providers will be as shameless as allowed by law. Or worse.
I try to cancel subscriptions immidiately after signing up when i only want the service for a limited time.
For an Italian newspaper's online subscription, after contacting them for cancellation via web form, my family was informed: you have to call a number and that cancellations will only be accepted 1 day before the end of the subscription.
Let me re-state that: you have to remember, one year after signing up, to call that number within a 24 hour window (maybe less, depending on their office hours), reach somebody, and hope for their honesty in confirming the cancellation, because your have no proof that you did so.
Or you are locked in for another year.
Luckily, I had used PayPal as subscription payment method, wich has a separate web interface for cancellation.
And also remembered the call after one year, for good measure.
But what a disrespect for consumers! Quite surprised this was apparently legal in Italy (we don't live there, it was an educational subscription).
> Quite surprised this was apparently legal in Italy
Did you verify that? Because I wouldn't be surprised if it's not actually legal, but that it's just a "we'll try it and no one fines us if we break the law" type of thing. When I lived in the UK (pre-Brexit) quite a few companies broke EU consumer laws all the time, such as mandatory listing of FULL price up front, but no one really seemed to care enough to actually do something about it so loads of companies (small and large) just did illegal stuff.
From what I can find, EU law isn't super-strong on subscriptions, although most countries do seem to have national laws. For example in Netherlands automatic renewals are only allowed month-by-month after the initial contract period, and you need to be able to unsubscribe with the same communication method that you used to subscribe. Simple common-sense no-brainer stuff, really.
>I try to cancel subscriptions immidiately after signing up when i only want the service for a limited time.
Maddening: Apple requires iOS devs to allow a trial to run its full course even if the user cancels early. There's an exception, though. Wanna guess what it is?
Yep, Apple's own services. Cancel an Apple Music, TV, etc. trial early, and it ends immediately.
Illinois says that any subscription must be cancelable in the same place it's created, so if I sign up for Hulu using my smart tv,I can cancel there as well. It's really good.
People often complain about the proliferation of streaming services, but thanks to the law mentioned above, I'm able to subscribe and then immediately cancel. If I decide I want more time I can resubscribe later. I get to watch what I want with a minimum of recurring bills.
This is one reason I prefer subscribing via Apple's store where possible--it's always a hassle-free cancellation and all my subscriptions are in one screen.
You can't cancel a Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel subscription online. You have to call them and sit on hold for god-knows-how-long. I ended up just sending my bank a stop payment order.
One of the great perks of living in the Netherlands. We already have this. If you can sign up in 1 minute using the web you must also be able to cancel in one minute using the web (For the Dutch: Wet van Dam). This rule is only for consumers not for businesses. Consumers are very well protected here.
I keep running into Dutch e-commerce sites that advertise prices without fees and VAT, and I haven't figured out who I'm supposed to complain to. Just yesterday, the first indication the prices weren't accurate is when I saw the real total in iDEAL.
As someone who immigrated here from the US, holy crap is it so nice to actually cancel something. I tried a few different Dutch streaming services before settlign on which one I wanted to keep and cancelling the others was painless.
Customer protections for online purchases are also great. The return policy for buying online is so much better than in person, I have friends who will purposefully browse in-store, then place an order on their phone and pick it up at the customer service counter 5 minutes later, solely to take advantage of the extra consumer protections. This is especially true for more expensive purchases like appliances (looking at you Mediamarkt)!
Nothing makes me want this to pass more than Disney and Netflix fighting it. If those assholes are opposed to it, almost by definition I'm going to be for it.
For customers it is quite good, but to be fair, Netflix cancellation process is very straightforward, at least in Europe. There weren't any tricks, they just said see you later and cancelled.
I prefer that the government doesn't go too heavy handed with the rule and try to solve all problems with requirements such as maintaining detailed phone records. We don't want huge costs of compliance making it harder for small players to enter the market.
I think the rule of "sign up online, cancel online using a clearly visible option in the account settings", plus the legalese to cover corner cases, would be a huge improvement. Making it difficult to cancel a subscription is the oldest trick on the book and is tantamount to fraud.
Having read the proposed amendments outlined in the notice, I don't see any mention of this. Outside the proposed amendments, the only mention of this is commentary that several state AGs have urged the commission to amend a different rule (the telephone sales rule) to require recording consent when provided by phone. However, this proposed rule making notice is about the negative option rule, and no such requirement is being proposed.
The requirements the FTC are proposal are refreshingly reasonable. Here is a link to the FTC's page on this, which includes links to the full text of the notice as well as a link to a one-pager summary.
> We don't want huge costs of compliance making it harder for small players to enter the market.
As the same time, I would love to see cost build up when the large players grow larger.
Maybe some form of enforcement tiers -- you need to do this or that when you have this many of users.
> We don't want huge costs of compliance making it harder for small players to enter the market.
If that were the effect of the FTC's maneuvering, I would not expect Netflix or Disney to oppose it. It would be the government helping them build moats - a wonderful reason for them to pay those lobbyists.
> We don't want huge costs of compliance making it harder for small players to enter the market.
A laudable goal in theory. In practice when was the last time a small player entered the streaming market? This mindset enables the massive entrenched corporations to abuse customers.
Daydream: Companies with customer-hostile subscriptions policies are all required to use the IRS's new "Advanced Corporate Tax Management" web site. Where the ever-shifting dark patterns of UI and ever-resetting defaults (especially the "voluntary extra contribution to the US Treasury") make their lives difficult. And that IRS site's webmasters collect a percentage on those "extra contributions", and appeals can only be made in person on the ISS, and ...
Why is it still the norm in the US to allow companies to charge their customers whenever they please, without the customers having any control?
In India, businesses are required to get a consent, at the time of subscription, to charge the customer on a recurring basis. This is called an e-mandate and requires multi-factor authentication to create. The card holder can cancel the mandate online, through their bank, without having to rely on the business doing the right thing. The business cannot charge the customer beyond that point, without obtaining a new mandate.
When you sign up, you are agreeing to the contract ("I agree to the terms and conditions"). Those terms and conditions legally dictate what you are agreeing to and how you will be charged, and what conditions are necessary to break that contract.
They aren't allowed to charge you whenever they please, without customer control, they have to abide by the contract. Unfortunately, most people don't read the contract, and companies put ridiculous terms in there that people happily agree to.
It's not and 99% of the time it's blatant user error. Like the guys top post that is refusing to believe his father slammed the re-subscribe button when sharing his account with him.
Germany enforced this a couple of years ago: if you can contract with someone electronically, cancelling this needs to be as simple as agreeing to that contract.
Annoyingly, a lot of companies try to work around this - I tried to cancel a newspaper subscription a while back and they didn't offer that. So I simply wrote a quick email. Then they requested to call me to discuss this and I had to answer via email quoting that relevant law. Then they accepted it. Annoying.
Cancelling Wow, Amazon Prime, Audible or Netflix is really just a mouse click (with Amazon Prime and Audible using some dark patterns to convince you to stay).
> The Internet & Television Association, which counts Disney, Paramount, and Warner Bros. Discovery as members, said in its public comment that the proposed reg is so vague, it would lead marketers to be excessive in their disclosures, leaving consumers "inundated" and "confused."
I have a rule and that is, anytime somebody pushes back on something with the rationale, "doing X will confuse our users," it is ALWAYS because they have some ulterior motive that has nothing to do with the users at all. (And furthermore shows how little they think of their users's general intelligence.)
It's the fact that unsubscribing to several services on a mobile phone is a nearly impossible task that is infuriating to me. Most streaming apps immediately divert you to their app (if it's installed) if you search for them on the web. These same apps will also tell you to "go to the web to manage your subscription". This forces the user to first delete the app and cross their fingers that the website doesn't just bounce them back over the app store.
Also, why has safari's mobile "request desktop site" not worked for me in over 5 years? It never brings a desktop site anymore... so annoying.
Apple tried to fix this by diverting any in-app subscriptions thru their app store, but because they take such a substantial cut of the sub revenue, companies would rather redirect users to the web to buy a sub and not provide the capability within the app. Despite Apple's efforts here, it has completely backfired and made the end user experience a deplorable state of affairs.
I have a small SaaS business and do the vast majority of development myself. I made it just as easy to cancel as it is to sign up, just a couple clicks. Not that anybody does: churn is way below every benchmark and those who cancel for a time frequently come back.
Being customer-friendly pays dividends, folks. Not sure why big companies don't get that. Maybe it's because the only stakeholders I have to answer to are myself, my cofounder, and our customers.
I have switched to prepaid gift cards instead of giving apps the right to take money from my bank account. No payment information linked to Google- got burned by auto renewal once and never again.
Not paying a debt you legitimately owe doesn’t eliminate the legitimacy of the debt. Most app owners probably won’t take any further action against you because it’s not usually worth the time and money (at least in the US), but they’re entitled to. If they sell your debt to a debt collector, have fun with that.
(Tangent: there is usually a certain number of years of inaction after which they can’t go after you for the debt, unless you again acknowledge the debt. The details and the ways to reset that clock vary by jurisdiction.)
I really appreciate that legislation here forces companies to accept cancellation by email. There are services that have the contact addresses as a directory and you can just fill out a form online and they have to honor your cancellation.
When was the last time US consumers got any kind of win? Even though this seems like an obvious proposal, I find it hard to not expect the FTC to get their asses kicked in court.
The issue is so simple. The companies claim that it would impose heavy costs on them. Well. So it either costs the companies or it costs the consumer. But the consumer is exercising their free choice while the companies are ignoring said choice and forcing them to pay for something they don't want. That's textbook extortion.
Easy solution: impose crippling fines or maybe a little prison sentence here and there for extortion. Why not? That's what it is. Do it and watch how fast the mobsters, I mean, the companies will change their tune.
[+] [-] qaz_plm|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RGBCube|2 years ago|reply
Though I think it only works for Turkey based companies, sadly.
[+] [-] atahanacar|2 years ago|reply
Also, "you can sue them" in this context means "you can use e-Devlet to sue a company online, without having to leave your house". It goes straight to your local Consumer Court, who asks the company to send in their defense and then the Consumer Council gathers together to reach a verdict. This total process normally takes around 3 months and you have to do absolutely nothing once you send the official complaint online, but some companies like to delay this procedure just because they can, by sending in their defense the last day before the deadline.
[+] [-] ethbr0|2 years ago|reply
I'd prefer to see it as a non-government, not-for-profit service.
But the ceding of front end control to services themselves doesn't work. We already learned that with email / unsubscribe.
[+] [-] sbmthakur|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orangesquirrel|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] didsomeonesay|2 years ago|reply
I try to cancel subscriptions immidiately after signing up when i only want the service for a limited time.
For an Italian newspaper's online subscription, after contacting them for cancellation via web form, my family was informed: you have to call a number and that cancellations will only be accepted 1 day before the end of the subscription.
Let me re-state that: you have to remember, one year after signing up, to call that number within a 24 hour window (maybe less, depending on their office hours), reach somebody, and hope for their honesty in confirming the cancellation, because your have no proof that you did so. Or you are locked in for another year.
Luckily, I had used PayPal as subscription payment method, wich has a separate web interface for cancellation. And also remembered the call after one year, for good measure.
But what a disrespect for consumers! Quite surprised this was apparently legal in Italy (we don't live there, it was an educational subscription).
[+] [-] arp242|2 years ago|reply
Did you verify that? Because I wouldn't be surprised if it's not actually legal, but that it's just a "we'll try it and no one fines us if we break the law" type of thing. When I lived in the UK (pre-Brexit) quite a few companies broke EU consumer laws all the time, such as mandatory listing of FULL price up front, but no one really seemed to care enough to actually do something about it so loads of companies (small and large) just did illegal stuff.
From what I can find, EU law isn't super-strong on subscriptions, although most countries do seem to have national laws. For example in Netherlands automatic renewals are only allowed month-by-month after the initial contract period, and you need to be able to unsubscribe with the same communication method that you used to subscribe. Simple common-sense no-brainer stuff, really.
[+] [-] rogual|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tiltowait|2 years ago|reply
Maddening: Apple requires iOS devs to allow a trial to run its full course even if the user cancels early. There's an exception, though. Wanna guess what it is?
Yep, Apple's own services. Cancel an Apple Music, TV, etc. trial early, and it ends immediately.
Apple: "Rules for thee, not for me."
[+] [-] DavideNL|2 years ago|reply
Yea, this has been my strategy also… best approach.
Also, i simply purchase way less in general since “subscription hell” started versus before that.
[+] [-] paulddraper|2 years ago|reply
Phone call recording app is a great, great idea.
[+] [-] kevinmchugh|2 years ago|reply
People often complain about the proliferation of streaming services, but thanks to the law mentioned above, I'm able to subscribe and then immediately cancel. If I decide I want more time I can resubscribe later. I get to watch what I want with a minimum of recurring bills.
[+] [-] nielsbot|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryukoposting|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pixelatedindex|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cortesoft|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ivolimmen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] otikik|2 years ago|reply
The mental image that produces in someone not fluent in Dutch:
https://cdn10.bigcommerce.com/s-x8dfmo/products/10767/images...
[+] [-] terinjokes|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yurishimo|2 years ago|reply
Customer protections for online purchases are also great. The return policy for buying online is so much better than in person, I have friends who will purposefully browse in-store, then place an order on their phone and pick it up at the customer service counter 5 minutes later, solely to take advantage of the extra consumer protections. This is especially true for more expensive purchases like appliances (looking at you Mediamarkt)!
[+] [-] sleight42|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blitz_skull|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greyman|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glimshe|2 years ago|reply
I think the rule of "sign up online, cancel online using a clearly visible option in the account settings", plus the legalese to cover corner cases, would be a huge improvement. Making it difficult to cancel a subscription is the oldest trick on the book and is tantamount to fraud.
[+] [-] nulbyte|2 years ago|reply
Having read the proposed amendments outlined in the notice, I don't see any mention of this. Outside the proposed amendments, the only mention of this is commentary that several state AGs have urged the commission to amend a different rule (the telephone sales rule) to require recording consent when provided by phone. However, this proposed rule making notice is about the negative option rule, and no such requirement is being proposed.
The requirements the FTC are proposal are refreshingly reasonable. Here is a link to the FTC's page on this, which includes links to the full text of the notice as well as a link to a one-pager summary.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/...
[+] [-] j16sdiz|2 years ago|reply
As the same time, I would love to see cost build up when the large players grow larger. Maybe some form of enforcement tiers -- you need to do this or that when you have this many of users.
[+] [-] drewcoo|2 years ago|reply
If that were the effect of the FTC's maneuvering, I would not expect Netflix or Disney to oppose it. It would be the government helping them build moats - a wonderful reason for them to pay those lobbyists.
[+] [-] mostlysimilar|2 years ago|reply
A laudable goal in theory. In practice when was the last time a small player entered the streaming market? This mindset enables the massive entrenched corporations to abuse customers.
[+] [-] xg15|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frankfrankfrank|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bell-cot|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilyt|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tuxychandru|2 years ago|reply
In India, businesses are required to get a consent, at the time of subscription, to charge the customer on a recurring basis. This is called an e-mandate and requires multi-factor authentication to create. The card holder can cancel the mandate online, through their bank, without having to rely on the business doing the right thing. The business cannot charge the customer beyond that point, without obtaining a new mandate.
[+] [-] dghlsakjg|2 years ago|reply
They aren't allowed to charge you whenever they please, without customer control, they have to abide by the contract. Unfortunately, most people don't read the contract, and companies put ridiculous terms in there that people happily agree to.
[+] [-] cragfar|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spacemadness|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sveme|2 years ago|reply
Annoyingly, a lot of companies try to work around this - I tried to cancel a newspaper subscription a while back and they didn't offer that. So I simply wrote a quick email. Then they requested to call me to discuss this and I had to answer via email quoting that relevant law. Then they accepted it. Annoying.
Cancelling Wow, Amazon Prime, Audible or Netflix is really just a mouse click (with Amazon Prime and Audible using some dark patterns to convince you to stay).
[+] [-] wdb|2 years ago|reply
Want to make cancelling more difficult, well then you should make signing up same level difficult
[+] [-] bityard|2 years ago|reply
I have a rule and that is, anytime somebody pushes back on something with the rationale, "doing X will confuse our users," it is ALWAYS because they have some ulterior motive that has nothing to do with the users at all. (And furthermore shows how little they think of their users's general intelligence.)
[+] [-] dontrustme|2 years ago|reply
Also, why has safari's mobile "request desktop site" not worked for me in over 5 years? It never brings a desktop site anymore... so annoying.
Apple tried to fix this by diverting any in-app subscriptions thru their app store, but because they take such a substantial cut of the sub revenue, companies would rather redirect users to the web to buy a sub and not provide the capability within the app. Despite Apple's efforts here, it has completely backfired and made the end user experience a deplorable state of affairs.
[+] [-] remyp|2 years ago|reply
Being customer-friendly pays dividends, folks. Not sure why big companies don't get that. Maybe it's because the only stakeholders I have to answer to are myself, my cofounder, and our customers.
[+] [-] WeylandYutani|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkaplowitz|2 years ago|reply
(Tangent: there is usually a certain number of years of inaction after which they can’t go after you for the debt, unless you again acknowledge the debt. The details and the ways to reset that clock vary by jurisdiction.)
[+] [-] chiefalchemist|2 years ago|reply
https://privacy.com/
[+] [-] littlecranky67|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] the_mitsuhiko|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dahwolf|2 years ago|reply
How about begging me to stay? 3 confirmations? An input box where I can vent? A discount to stay?
Nothing. It sucks, I want proper closure.
[+] [-] bogwog|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Luctct|2 years ago|reply
Easy solution: impose crippling fines or maybe a little prison sentence here and there for extortion. Why not? That's what it is. Do it and watch how fast the mobsters, I mean, the companies will change their tune.