[ssmoot]

If they signed a contract you might have a point.

And you didn't special order anything. Your argument here is all kinds of moving goal posts.

Bottom line: Unless you have an actual contract, don't expect to win. And even then, be prepared to demonstrate that your product worked as advertised and explain why, despite communicating by email with the customer as routine, that was not sufficient for cancellation. Pretty sure you haven't addressed this at all except to say "because I thought I could sell the things I bought!". Sorry, but no, you don't get to change the rules just because yours is an Internet service. Especially not for a month to month pre-pay authorization. That's just ridiculous. I haven't even seen pre-paid cellular networks try to pull that scam.

https://consumerist.com/2008/01/21/suing-big-companies-in-sm...

[Silhouette]

Bottom line: Unless you have an actual contract, don't expect to win.

We do have an actual contract, the moment someone signs up and pays us money under our advertised terms. It is as clear and legally binding as if we sat down at a table and signed a piece of paper. I suspect that not understanding this is the cause of many of the incorrect things you've been saying in this thread.

Edit: Just to be reiterate in case it wasn't clear from my other comments, one of the points in those terms specifically says what the process for cancelling is and that an e-mail is not sufficient, for precisely the kinds of reasons we've been talking about on HN today.

[ssmoot]

You're trying to claim fees for services not rendered for a pre-paid monthly service are rightfully yours (again without addressing the email) because you've made a claim in a ToS.

And you think that'd stand up in small claims. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when that gets tested. ;-) And the collection agency willing to sign on as a co-defendant? That better be some monthly subscription fee.

Also, there's no way you win a chargeback claim in this case: https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/news/cnwin1213/stopp...

You're going to have a rough time explaining why you thought you were within your rights to ignore her cancellation notice. Do you also think your ToS would allow you to ignore certified mail? You might want to talk to an actual lawyer.

[Silhouette]

You're talking hypotheticals. We actually do this, and we actually do talk to real lawyers. On the rare occasions when someone has tried their luck, we have never lost so much as a chargeback.

Of course, most of the time it never gets that far, because as I said before, we try to provide very good customer service. Among other things, that means we are up-front about our pricing and we give our subscribers quick and effective ways to manage their subscriptions. I wouldn't want to run a business that did the sort of shady things mentioned elsewhere in this discussion. We get very few complaints in the first place, and in reality it's far more common for us to help out someone who made an honest mistake and then get a nice mail back.

All I'm saying here is that we don't have any obligation to go beyond what our terms and the relevant laws require, and in particular, we don't have to accept some random e-mail as cancellation when we explicitly say we won't, for good reasons, and when we provide a quick and effective alternative that is readily available to all subscribers. I honestly can't see why anyone would have a problem with that.

[tamana]

Why are you investing so much effort in debating a straw man argument? Is there a particular real world case you are thinking about?

[ssmoot]

Boredom? I dunno. Didn't feel like watching TV I guess.

Since he/she cited a specific case however, doesn't seem like "strawman" qualifies.

A company representative is notified of cancellation. A company offering a month to month pre-pay service isn't entitled to anything else. End of story. IMO. Anything else is unethical.

That seems perfectly reasonable. No you're not within your rights to dick with people in bad faith, no matter what a ToS says. You can put whatever you'd like in there. Doesn't mean it'll pass muster when you're in front of a judge.

Beyond that she (the customer) is perfectly within her rights to cancel at any time. So the "but but but, I spent money!" is the real straw-man here. Silhoutte would have considered it his/her obligation to spend that money either way, the customer could have cancelled at the literal last second, through her/his preferred online method even, and that doesn't change a thing. There's a strawman.

Mostly it's probably because I had AT&T try something similar on me in the past year, trying to hold me liable for $1,300 for UVerse service at an address I've never lived at, going as far as to pursue collections against me.

They and the collections dropped their claim pretty quickly when I made it clear I'd be taking them to small claims over this.

Those are different circumstances. I suppose it just irks me that some people think they have a "right" to your property because you were rude?

It's nobody's "right" to dip into your wallet for a prepaid service. It's not moral. It's not ethical. Can you think of another service where that'd fly? I can't. The utility companies only seek to recover services rendered. Prepaid phone services will simply suspend service until you pay up. It's your right to suspend payments on your credit card to your MVNO whenever you like. It's their right to suspend service if you do. It's not their right to do much else.

That seems totally fair.

[hvidgaard]

In Denmark, companies are required to clearly and visibly state things such as total price - if they fail to do so, the "contract" is invalid. If they don't provide a reasonable way to cancel services (relative to the signup procedure), the company have no case. So stating in a ToS that I must call to cancel, when I signed up with nothing but a webform and an email, would not be accepted.

[Silhouette]

In Denmark, companies are required to clearly and visibly state things such as total price - if they fail to do so, the "contract" is invalid.

Something approximately the same as that is true across the EU under the recent changes to the consumer protection rules.

On your other points, I'll just mention that this subthread was originally about whether accepting e-mail as a cancellation method was appropriate, not so much the original topic of trying to force people to call as an aggressive way to deter cancellation. It seems we all agree that making it excessively difficult for someone to cancel when they're entitled to is scummy behaviour, and I imagine the law in many places would take a similar view.