|
|
|
|
|
|
by Supermancho
1684 days ago
|
|
|
> It's outrageous that companies in the modern day and age can just elect to make cancellation difficult or impossible and keep taking money from yo I'm not sure you read the story. A small claims judge would make short work of that situation wherein they will inform Spectrum that they do not want this to go to jury. However, this story is about a guy getting a resubscription extortion letter in light of a non-existent debt. Might as well be a foreign Prince scam because there are no damages. |
|
|
The situation in TFA is what happens if you try to escalate an ignored cancellation request by stopping payment. The company graciously extends debt to cover the service that you surely didn't intend to cancel, and when your balance -- augmented by late fees, of course -- has grown to be worth their while, they try to collect.
Variations on this theme exist. Sometimes you take a less than completely active role in the sign-up process and only learn about it on collection. Sometimes you "successfully" cancel and they just fail to process it. The common theme here is ongoing transactions for ongoing service (that isn't actually delivered) in the absence of ongoing consent. It's dysfunctional that we allow this in any form, regardless of whether the form in TFA is slightly less dysfunctional or slightly more dysfunctional than the most common form, which is what I structured my comment around.
If subscription services had to register with your credit card, credit reporting agencies, or some authority that gave you a (complete!) list and a cancel button, all of these problems would go away, along with the awful business models that they enable.