New California Law Requires One-Click Subscription Cancellations (thedesk.net) 61
A new law in California will make it easier for consumers to cancel their streaming subscriptions and similar products when they enroll in automatic renewal of those services. From a report: The law, passed through Assembly Bill (AB) 2863, will require companies that offer automatic subscription renewals through one-click purchases to also offer customers a way to cancel their subscriptions through the same one-click method. California already had one of the toughest subscription cancellation laws in the country, requiring companies to offer a way to cancel a recurring subscription through the Internet if they allowed customers to sign up for a service that way.
The initial law was meant to prevent companies from allowing customers to purchase a subscription through the web, while forcing them to call a hotline to cancel them. Consumer advocacy groups complained that companies would often subject customers to frustrating long wait times on the phone with the hope that they would eventually hang up without cancelling their service. While the law was good in theory, it contained at least one loophole: Companies were in compliance as long as they offered a way for customers to cancel their subscriptions online, but could make them click several links or visit several webpages with opt-in requirements before a cancellation request was processed.
The initial law was meant to prevent companies from allowing customers to purchase a subscription through the web, while forcing them to call a hotline to cancel them. Consumer advocacy groups complained that companies would often subject customers to frustrating long wait times on the phone with the hope that they would eventually hang up without cancelling their service. While the law was good in theory, it contained at least one loophole: Companies were in compliance as long as they offered a way for customers to cancel their subscriptions online, but could make them click several links or visit several webpages with opt-in requirements before a cancellation request was processed.
Re: (Score:3)
... Is the public really that slow where they can't figure how to stop a sub?
Seriously have you been living under a rock? No one is responsible for their own actions anymore.
Seriously, have you been living under a rock? Companies make it as hard as possible to cancel a subscription, hoping that a significant fraction of people will just give up and let them keep sucking your money.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Can I do it with one click?
Re: (Score:2)
I see, so you're the one living in the echo chamber. Tell us all how the politicians sat around and dreamed up ways to beat on companies... while accepting huge PAC contributions.
As opposed to tons of their constituants complaining.
Yes, it is that hard to cancel (Score:5, Informative)
Seems like babysitting to me forcing companies to make it easier to cancel a subscription. Is the public really that slow where they can't figure how to stop a sub?
Yes. I've had subscriptions where I've literally had to spend an hour to cancel a twelve-dollar-a-month subscription; where the required way to cancel turned out to be to call the number given in small print and talk to a human being whose entire job description is apparently "try to stop the customer from cancelling". They deliberately make it hard, because they want that sweet free money that they can siphon off from you every month. If they could make it impossible to cancel they would do that, but instead they very deliberately make it as hard to to as they can manage.
Stopping a subscription should never be harder than signing up for it in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Stopping a subscription should never be harder than signing up for it in the first place.
"But the headline says California passed a new law!!"
Re: (Score:2)
Stopping a subscription should never be harder than signing up for it in the first place.
"But the headline says California passed a new law!!"
And BIG CORPs will gladly comply ... by burying that one-click button about 47 levels deep, and only showing it to you after obtaining an "identity confirmation code" (gotta make sure it's REALLY YOU dropping the sub) via phone call that gets bounced around though 13 different handlers.
Re: (Score:2)
The law, passed through Assembly Bill (AB) 2863, will require companies that offer automatic subscription renewals through one-click purchases to also offer customers a way to cancel their subscriptions through the same one-click method.
I don't deny your characterization of the motivation for these companies to behave this way, but the law does seem to be addressing specifically that.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely. It should be just as easy to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up for one. Making people call up, navigate through a phone tree, wait on hold, then argue with a customer service rep shouldn't be necessary
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that they make it confusing on purpose, to increase chances that you miss your cancellation.
They also make it very easy to subscribe by accident.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems like babysitting to me forcing companies to make it easier to cancel a subscription. Is the public really that slow where they can't figure how to stop a sub?
Try reading the provided article.
The initial law was meant to prevent companies from allowing customers to purchase a subscription through the web, while forcing them to call a hotline to cancel them. Consumer advocacy groups complained that companies would often subject customers to frustrating long wait times on the phone with the hope that they would eventually hang up without cancelling their service.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh no the horror they are doing something pro consumer why do they hate America?
Yes companies need to be forced otherwise they will make it as hard as possible.
Re: (Score:3)
Is the public really that slow where they can't figure how to stop a sub?
The problem is that it's *not* this simple. If it were as easy to stop a sub as it was to start, this wouldn't be a problem.
Instead, companies have a strong tendency to involve several convoluted steps (to "confirm"), commonly involving dark patterns or other forms of obfuscation ("Would you like to stay instead? Click the big-bright 'yes' button on the bottom right to keep your subscription, or the small, not-even-underlined 'no' button here in this line of text, if you'd like). There have even been report
Re:Is it that hard to cancel? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seems like babysitting to me
You aren't wrong on that assessment. But, when the entities under your jurisdiction are behaving like babies, sometimes a babysitter is exactly what you need.
Is the public really that slow where they can't figure how to stop a sub?
Cancelled a gym membership lately? If I can create a subscription by clicking a button, I should be able to cancel it in the same fashion. It shouldn't need phone calls, printed and signed forms, fax machines, email chains, support tickets, smoke signals, carrier pigeons, lawyers, or exorcists. It should be a button click. The fact that we need legislation to make this happen is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:1)
Is the public really that slow where they can't figure how to stop a sub?
Yes
Re: (Score:2)
Horse hockey, as Col. Potter would say. Have you, personally, ever cancelled subscriptions? You've never seen how obscure the links are, and then the hoops you hve to jump through to cancel?
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like babysitting to me forcing companies to make it easier to cancel a subscription. Is the public really that slow where they can't figure how to stop a sub?
To the anti-government-at-all-costs crowd..
There's a reason I want the government to interject in some B2C matters.
Gone are the days where you can just show up to an unethical or immoral business owner and tar and feather them, or worse. If the government says I cannot take a hammer to the leg of the company who just hangs up every time I try to cancel a service, then I expect the government to do for me what I am not allowed to do.
Pick one.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like babysitting to me forcing companies to make it easier to cancel a subscription. Is the public really that slow where they can't figure how to stop a sub?
Does it seem like babysitting to you to allow people to subscribe to something online? No? Then why can't they do the same with cancelations? Oh, its because companies want to make you call some number and sit on hold for 45 minutes, hoping you'll get frustrated and hang up? Corporate sycophants are pathetic.
Fascinating stuff -- also, credit cards! (Score:4, Informative)
In my recent experience, only one place kept hounding me to update the card. Several other vendors were able to renew the subscription anyway (even though I did not update the card on record).
Re:Fascinating stuff -- also, credit cards! (Score:4)
I'd blame the CC company for letting it happen. A canceled card is a canceled card. No more charges and don't transfer them to my new card.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a nomenclature issue. A cancelled card is just that - the card itself was cancelled, not the account. What you want is a closed account, or a new way to block further transactions from a particular retailer.
Re: (Score:2)
What you want is a closed account, or a new way to block further transactions from a particular retailer.
I apologize for going off topic here but I wanted to mention that I want a way to block transactions from a particular retailer that exceed an amount I define. It's bad enough that more and more of them want to directly reach into my wallet, they love price increases, too. T-Mobile, for example, raised my rates after a very public statement that they would not. A few months before that they disallowed using credit cards to get a $20/mo autopay discount. So they now they have a very real chance of makin
Re: (Score:1)
T-Mobile Money
Hey now, I get a great exchange rate to AT&T Nickels. I only get charged a 3% currency fee, 7% convenience fee & a 12% government compliance fee. Bargain!
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. "oops we charged your credit card twice, here's a T-Mobile Credit that you certainly cannot use to pay your power bill."
Re: (Score:1)
A cancelled card is just that - the card itself was cancelled, not the account.
I don't follow the logic. They are using the cancelled card to continue the sub. If the card is cancelled, it doesn't work. Yet, they use some cheap tricks to somehow continue charging.
Don't worry they'll just update the T&C to say, "we are gods, we'll do whatever we want. You now owe us a $30 cancelled card use fee"
The credit card companies are just in bed with the oligopoly corps to con you out of your money. They'll lie, cheat and steal all the way.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a recurring subscription to some service and had to call them several times to try to cancel but they just wouldn't do it.
I finally removed my credit card information from my account so they couldn't charge it.
They continued to charge my account and I accumulated a balance due. I just ignored their pleas for payment and they eventually gave up.
Re: (Score:2)
I just ignored their pleas for payment and they eventually gave up.
That's all well and good until they sell your account to the blood suckers. The kind of "collections companies" that buy the debt for pennies on the dollar and are have some insanely unscrupulous business practices. I hope you never have the pleasure of having one of those sorts of companies on your tail. And most likely the "I cancelled my card and haven't used the service since" isn't a sufficient excuse to absolve you of the debt.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you're right.
Fortunately that didn't happen to me but it could.
This is common with medical debt (which has higher balances hence more incentive to collect).
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it's actually those particular dregs of the earth that you *DO* want hounding you. It's the real lenders like the originating banks that can grief you and get away with it. See, this is an industry whose mission statement could trivially be paraphrased to: "Let's find people who've already had a run of misfortune, pile more misfortune on them, and now we can all get our jollies by kicking them while they're down!" That sort of outlook does not compel high-quality people into choosing it as their care
Re: (Score:2)
You need contact information leading back to the agency.
This is the biggest part of the plan that falls apart. The types of shitty companies I'm talking about don't exist very long. They open their doors, buy a shitload of the "pennies on the dollar" debts, squeeze as much blood out of the turnip as they can for a few months, then fold up shop. By the time you get your lawsuit paperwork filled out "Shitty Collection Company LLC" doesn't exist anymore. When your process server shows up to the address provided, someone identifying themselves as representing "Shi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You’re free to leave any time you want for that libertarian paradise. Haiti fits the bill perfectly. No government to get in your way or the way of business.
Re: (Score:3)
Haiti fits the bill perfectly.
And all the free cats and dogs you can eat. Bonus!
Re: (Score:2)
Nice but not a big help (Score:2)
I'd rather see a law requiring that canceling be approximately as easy as enrolling. Those businesses that have zero customer support and a sign up page but when you look for canceling it you find out there is no web page.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather see a law requiring that canceling be approximately as easy as enrolling.
I disagree. Canceling should be much easier.
To enroll you have to provide a lot of information (name, address, credit card) and choose a plan. No reason why cancelling should be that hard.
Slashdot time travel? (Score:2)
Did they post about the veto of this bill by the governor before posting about the bill itself?
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That was a different bill (AB-3048). This is bill AB-2863.
Re: (Score:2)
That was a different bill (AB-3048). This is bill AB-2863.
Thanks, it all looked similar but I failed to locate the bill number for the other one after a quick search of the ./ article. I retract my concern.
Parasitic Businesses (Score:2)
Most businesses want a recurring revenue stream and will go to great lengths to protect it. They're sort of like aphids on a plant. They use the state as "ants" (regulatory capture, power of authority) to protect the aphids, and the ants "tax" the aphids by extracting the honeydew. Think of the consumers as the "plant" they're pretty powerless to stop the ant/aphid racket, especially at the federal level in the USA.
I wouldn't be surprised if the business affected by this get a law passed to preempt the Ca
Re: (Score:2)
Its more than 50% pro-business due to the following:
1.Gerrymandering
2. Laws making voting as difficult and time-consuming as possible in red states
3. Election day is on a Tuesday instead of Sunday.
4. Some states let employers threaten voters with dismissal if they don't vote the way the company wants.
5. People don't vote in their best interests.
6. General apathy.
7. No initiative and recall at the federal level, and in some states.
Re: (Score:2)
Election day should be a federal holiday.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of businesses don't close for federal holidays. (Of course, many also don't close for Sundays.)
Mixing ensuring that everyone has a chance to vote, only legal voters vote, and anonymous ballots is a tough problem. If you want to also check that your vote was counted correctly and that nobody else can see how you voted ... well, I'm not sure there IS an answer. (Not that any of our ballot systems claim to meet all those conditions.)
Re: (Score:1)
4. Some states let employers threaten voters with dismissal if they don't vote the way the company wants.
I'm going to call bullshit on this one, but let's say it's true for a minute. How would the business know what your vote was if you go and do it in person? They can't. This is my #1 problem with mail in ballots because now there is a way. It's even more a problem with an abusive spouse.
Voting should be done in person, privately
Re: (Score:2)
Most businesses want a recurring revenue stream and will go to great lengths to protect it. They're sort of like aphids on a plant. They use the state as "ants" (regulatory capture, power of authority) to protect the aphids, and the ants "tax" the aphids by extracting the honeydew. Think of the consumers as the "plant" they're pretty powerless to stop the ant/aphid racket, especially at the federal level in the USA.
I wouldn't be surprised if the business affected by this get a law passed to preempt the California Law. Businesses are too powerful in the USA. The syatem is deliberately set up to elevate the interests of businesses over the public good.
Don't worry. For the moment Gavin Newsome will veto this. He's too business oriented to let something this people oriented pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Around here car washes keep popping up all over the place. I found out they all enroll you for a subscription plan.
How about NO MORE MAGIC OPT-IN CRAP? (Score:1)
If California, a useless state of busybodies, wants to make a difference they could legislate that NOBODY gets to ADD YOU ON A LIST without your prior authorization. No more "click here to unsubscribe" or "opt-out here." Just DON'T ADD ME and that includes politicians and every other asshole who thinks they can add me.
I once voted Blue. Now they sell my email address and I can't unsubscribe from mailing lists not yet created.
California - be useful - fix this. The rest of the country won't.
Re: How about NO MORE MAGIC OPT-IN CRAP? (Score:2)
This is easy. Don't give your email address and your credit card data to sleazebags. Problem solved. If businesses make it hard to unsubscribe, then just don't subscribe. When communicating with a spammer, use a disposable email address.
banks (Score:2)
Does this law include the ability to cancel recurring debits from bank accounts? That's more dangerous than recurring credit card charges.
Years ago I signed up for my utility company to direct debit my payments. After years of paying, I was moving away and went to cancel. The system asked for a password, but I had not established a password when I signed up; just my acct and the credentials for the bank; and I never looked at their website after. Customer service said "what is your password?" When I s
Re: (Score:2)
Does this law include the ability to cancel recurring debits from bank accounts? That's more dangerous than recurring credit card charges.
Years ago I signed up for my utility company to direct debit my payments. After years of paying, I was moving away and went to cancel. The system asked for a password, but I had not established a password when I signed up; just my acct and the credentials for the bank; and I never looked at their website after. Customer service said "what is your password?" When I said I never created one, they said "Ok, but what is your password." I had to go to the utility's president's office to eventually get it resolved. It took about a dozen phone calls.
Moral of the story: Never let any company reach INTO your accounts. Use something like check-free to push payments to them.
Fast moving cancel buttons (Score:2)
In an ideal world.... (Score:2)
...companies would be compelled to offer cancellation/opt-out via the exact same methodology that one subscribed/opted in. None of this "join online, but have to send a registered letter snail mail to cancel" crap.