[tuxychandru]

This is what Netflix's Terms of Use says, "If a payment is not successfully settled, due to expiration, insufficient funds, or otherwise, and you do not cancel your account, we may suspend your access to the service until we have successfully charged a valid Payment Method.".

A customer will be well within the bounds of the contract if they cancel their mandate through the bank, as long as they also don't expect to have continued access to Netflix.

Even in the US, there is nothing stopping the customer from closing their credit card account, except that it is an unreasonably inconvenient for the customer. It is far simpler and IMO sensible to be able to revoke consent for specific purposes through my payment instrument. So why doesn't the banking system in the US provide this as an universal option to customers? After all, this is exactly what Apple facilitates albeit at a high cost.

[dghlsakjg]

Re-read that closely. You still owe them the money, they aren't absolving you of the debt. Netflix seems content not to pursue customers for it, but there is nothing legally stopping them from coming after you for the amount you agreed to pay until you formally cancel. Thats the rub. Access suspension != account cancellation.

You can ask a US bank to stop future payments to a given merchant, but it doesn't actually absolve you of your contractual agreement to pay the merchant. Most internet based services have decided that it is bad business to pursue accounts where the payment was unsuccessful, but from a legal perspective, you are still on the hook.

I'm not saying I agree with the way the US system handles this, but to say that "the norm in the US to allow companies to charge their customers whenever they please, without the customers having any control" is inaccurate since customers have agreed to the terms of the contract which define when the customer is charged and what control they have.