[AdamJacobMuller]

All of the cloud services I have are setup only with privacy.com cards. I have each individual cards limited to just above what the monthly expected spend is. Even if there's a (reasonable) spike I can see it and I have to take manual action before the charge will go through.

Can not recommend privacy.com enough.

[myself248]

That's not what privacy.com does or is for. They advertise it, but I've had transactions blow right through the façade. Specifically, the New York Times, after my trial subscription ended and I watched the stupendously-expensive charges bounce, they kept trying and eventually tried a different way and it went through.

I emailed support, and here's what I got back:

> Hi, $firstname. I've been reviewing your dispute and wanted to touch base with you to explain what happened.

> It appears that the disputed charge is a "force post" by the merchant. This happens when a merchant cannot collect funds for a transaction after repeated attempts and completes the transaction without an authorization — it's literally an unauthorized transaction that's against payment card network rules. It's a pretty sneaky move used by some merchants, and unfortunately, it's not something Privacy can block.

[rootusrootus]

They have a page that says pretty much exactly that, as well: https://support.privacy.com/hc/en-us/articles/360012288214-F...

What's interesting is that they seem to be glossing over the truth. It's not unauthorized, per se, it's using a prior authorization code. And it's intended for processing offline transactions. It seems like 'force' is an industry term and a bit hyperbolic when used in lay discussion.

More discussion here: https://www.tidalcommerce.com/learn/force-sale-credit-card

[sidewndr46]

It's the equivalent of a payment processor claiming a dog ate their homework.

[12345hn6789]

>It's literally an unauthorized transaction that's against payment card network rules. It's a pretty sneaky move used by some merchants, and unfortunately, it's not something Privacy can block

Have you found a site that does "block" this? Did you communicate with your credit card company about this? I am wondering

[myself248]

Use a prepaid card that you bought at a grocery store a few cities away from your hometown with cash while wearing a mask and not bringing any phones with you or driving a car that logs its location or beacons any identifying signals.

I think that might finally allow you to pay for the New York Times on your own terms and not worry about their hounds sniffing you down.

[sidewndr46]

Having talked to credit card issuers about this, what they told me was to close the account. They said they had no way to ever stop the charges from coming in.

[globnomulous]

In my case, even closing an account wasn't sufficient. A charge posted to a credit card I'd closed more than a year prior, and the card issuer was legally obligated to process the charge because of the renewal contract that apparently I had signed with the merchant. This led a single late payment, which, in turn, caused my credit score to tank by ~90 points just as I was applying for mortgages. I try not to think about what that, and waiting a year, until mortgage rates climbed to nearly 6%, will have cost me if I'm lucky enough to outlast my thirty-year-fixed mortgage.

Edit: and the dark Lord surely reserves a particularly unpleasant circle of hell for loan officers who encourage borrowers to consider a 5-1 variant rate because "we know rates will fall next year."

[sidewndr46]

This is interesting because it means potentially your estate would be liable for such charges indefinitely after your death.

[ihattendorf]

Doesn't stop them from trying to collect after the transaction is declined. It's not a prepaid service, you're agreeing to pay the charges _after_ you've used the service.

Will they pursue? Do they have enough info to purse? Who knows, but they can if they want to.

[lolinder]

This is very much not what privacy.com is for, and it won't protect you from $14k in BigQuery bills. There is no clause in the GCP contract (or any other contract, for that matter) which says "if your payment method is invalid when we go to collect what you owe us, we forfeit all right to be paid."

For small charges they might just give up because it's not worth it, but when dealing with a $14k bill you should assume that they will at the very least hand the debt off to a collections agency if you try to just ignore it.

[gpvos]

You're still liable to Google/whoever for the full amount, so it is only a temporary reprieve. Which can be useful, but does not solve the main problem.