[techmatters]

"A failure to comply cancels the transaction. You can get your money back and keep the goods. If the sale was for a service or a digital download, the contract is cancelled and no further payments are due." I would think that, under contract law, you get your money back and you return the goods - that would be cancelling the transaction. Likewise for digital downloads or services. Can anyone explain why the provider would be penalized further ?

[PeterisP]

I'd say that this is explicitly meant as a punishment to disincentivize such actions. Completely canceling the transaction just undoes the damage, and only if it places zero burden on the consumer - no shipping costs nor effort, which is unlikely.

This may come out as a 'double refund', but in generally accepted practice, paying triple of the dishonestly earned amount is also often considered an reasonable measure just as a penalty.

Otherwise if half of the cheated consumers complain and get their money back, and half don't notice it, then it's still a net win for a shady company and an incentive to continue such activities, contrary to the explicit goal of this legislation.

[ColinDabritz]

As others have stated, it's to disincentivize abuse. The USPS had a similar problem with scams and fraud, where scammers would send "gifts" to people, then follow them up with a bill. This is now explicitly against the law, but also importantly, if you are sent ANYTHING unsolicited, you may keep it. I'm guessing the second part is the stronger enforcement. Probably similar in this case. See: https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/investigations/mailfraud/...

[Argorak]

Because that could create a situation where the seller can put a burden on you. (arcane rules on how to return goods, trying to get shipment expenses from you, etc.)

[idea15webdesign]

We probably should have clarified that this is an online and and offline law affecting all sales and purchases, not just e-commerce ones.

The law provides better protections to consumers, but it also provides some protections to retailers against some of the dodgy practices they've had to deal with from consumers. Returns and expenses are a HUGE part of the law.

My favourite bit is what I call the "anti-wardrobing provision". Under the new law, when you return an item, retailers can now deduct a fair percentage of its cash value from your refund if you have returned it clearly damaged or un-resellable. This is because of wardrobing - the practice of buying an item of clothing, deliberately keeping the tags on, wearing it once, and returning it for a refund stinking of your night out.

[rmc]

> Can anyone explain why the provider would be penalized further ?

Because nearly always the trader/seller has more power than the little guy. It's good to 'encourage' them to not break the law in the first place.

It's like punitive damages.

[danielweber]

The same reason many states say that if the grocery store accidentally overcharges you by N cents for an item, you get 10 * N cents (up to a limit) off of the marked price.

This is encouraging the consumer to engage in self-help and gives them (in theory) just enough of them the motivation to keep on the lookout for the scam.

It's not the only way to run a regulatory regime, and it has some downsides, but it also has a measure of appeal.

[DSMan195276]

I don't claim to know for sure, but it seems to me like the reason for that is because all of these laws are restrictions are companies trying to do shady stuff to sell you more then what you wanted. Allowing the person purchasing the goods to keep them as well as get money back encourages companies to not break these laws since they don't want to lose their stuff. If they got their goods back then there really wouldn't be any repercussions toward the company for breaking these laws since the transactions would (presumably) be cancel-able within a specific time-frame already.