Best investment I ever made. Especially when buying new appliances. Ha.. It's kind of pathetic that I flinched at spending a few bucks a month for good content.
I have an entirely different perspective of Consumer Reports (the online variant which has external site ads on it).
Understand that they are entirely biased (as we all are): They take home the lucre by keeping you thinking that you need them, and that they're doing an important service. Hence why the big noise about things like not recommending the iPhone -- all just noise to keep the subscription dollars coming and to create a sense of utility. They're also prone to taking complex products and then trying to distill it into easily quantified values that they can put in a chart and categorize, leading to a detachment from real-world value and "need to fill this issue". I was a subscriber for several years and eventually came to realize that their top picks were usually not really top picks, and they were often in areas where they were entirely out of their depth (I discovered that particularly after buying a set of their top pick speakers).
After that print subscription ended, years later I was looking at getting a new furnace and saw that the online site listed furnace reviews, though they were hidden behind a paywall. Okay, bought a subscription to find that there were no reviews at all, but some useless summary about basic efficiency levels. Well that's useless. Oh well, a year subscription wasted. A year later I discovered that they auto-renewed (never signed up for that, but whatever), and put it on my todo list to jump through hoops to cancel at some point, wasting my time (as they give NO clear way to cancel, despite subscribing being a trivial painless step). The next year they sent me notice that my credit card had expired -- awesome, easy way to finally unsubscribe from an auto-renew that I didn't opt into without sitting on hold for half an hour! Imagine how funny I thought it was when they guessed my next expiry and just used that, continuing the subscription.
I have an extremely poor opinion of CU, and I think the belief that they're more pure or their opinion more useful is a bit naive.
>> Imagine how funny I thought it was when they guessed my next expiry and just used that, continuing the subscription.
They are not guessing the expiry date - I believe it is a service provided by some credit card companies, possibly to large merchants. It happened to me for several years with my Yahoo Email account - that would renew for $20 / year even though my card expired twice during that time. It stopped after I reported my card as lost/stolen - and got a replacement card, so the actual card number changed. Fastest - albeit a bit drastic - way to get out of a recurring billing if you are having trouble cancelling.
It's relatively easy to update the expiry date, since the month doesn't usually change. You just add two years, try the charge, and if it doesn't go through, wait a day and try it again with the next year. This is pretty standard for services with a recurring subscription model, and they don't really need to pay an outside provider for that info (although it would be trivial for any credit agency to provide.)
That said, I'm not sure he can complain that a recurring subscription continued to, well, recur.
I'm not a lawyer (nor an expert on payments) but generally it doesn't seem to have any element of fraud - it's collecting payment for services fairly rendered via the credit card account provided by the customer. Fraud would involve some kind of intentional deception.
If their was fraud, you could get a chargeback, and I don't see that happening very often.
You provide payment using the card. The card expires and can't - supposedly - be used beyond the expiry date to make a payment. There is no expectation of continued payment beyond the expiry date.
Guessing the new expiry date in order to exact a payment is taking an unauthorised payment. It can't be authorised because the card-holder can't authorise payments beyond the expiry date.
Taking a payment that isn't authorised by the card-holder by guessing some of the details of a card against the expectations of the card-holder appears to be fraudulent to me.
No, you provided initial payment using the credit card account, but you signed up for the service until you cancel it, not until your method of payment expires.
Even if you cancelled the card outright, you're generally technically (and legally) still on the hook for a subscription if you don't go and cancel. Read the ToS for just about any recurring subscription. It's your obligation to cancel, not their obligation to guess when you want to cancel. Honestly, I'm not sure how that's unfair; it's not a service provider's business to interpret your payment methods and how they might map to your desire to cancel or retain a service.
The only reason most services don't bother to pursue payment for expired cards is because it's not economic to do so. So when a card expires, they eventually mark the account as overdue and disable it. That's not the same as a clean cancellation; technically you still owe them for the services rendered between the last invoice and the final cancellation.
>you signed up for the service until you cancel it //
Maybe, that would depend on the legal terms under which you signed up. Mostly you sign up and pay for a fixed term. So contractually the expectation is that you don't continue payment.
If legally the payment is due, then that's still doesn't mean you can have authorised it on a card beyond the expiry date. Moreover you haven't authorised the payment with the new card (in the circumstances we're considering).
So the payment may be due, but it's been fraudulently acquired. There are procedures for collecting overdue amounts. Of course the companies don't want to follow those procedures and air their unfair [attempted] retention practices in court.
Hardly anyone offers a subscription service without an automatic renewal of some type. It's counter to the entire business model, which is that you spend once to acquire a customer but then earn back multiple subscription cycles from them (as the first cycle almost never pays back the cost of acquisition.)
Look at the Amazon Prime TOS, in all-caps: "UNLESS YOU NOTIFY US BEFORE A CHARGE THAT YOU WANT TO CANCEL OR DO NOT WANT TO AUTO RENEW, YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR PRIME MEMBERSHIP WILL AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUE AND YOU AUTHORIZE US (WITHOUT NOTICE TO YOU, UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW) TO COLLECT THE THEN-APPLICABLE MEMBERSHIP FEE AND ANY TAXES, USING ANY CREDIT CARD WE HAVE ON RECORD FOR YOU."
I'm guessing that their definition of "CREDIT CARD" is wide enough that they can roll the expiration date; when your card expiresd at Amazon you can just update the date without entering a "new card" - they consider the new physical card to be the same "payment method."
It's your obligation to cancel, not their obligation to guess when you want to cancel.
You have a remarkably apologetic attitude towards a scumbag industry.
Just to be clear, here's the modus operendi for the retention industry-
1) Trick or outright scam people into recurring subscriptions. I never told Consumer Reports I wanted my subscription to recur, and it provides absolutely zero value to me that they did so. If they hid text somewhere for this, it is a clear and obvious example that the industry desperately needs onerous rules and restrictions prohibiting this, such as a customer yearly opt in and double-positive recurrence opt-in (rather than some hidden subtext that oh by the way we have your credit card so have fun cancelling sucker).
2) Hide methods of cancelling said subscription behind as many layers as possibly: It is shocking how easy it is to sign up for many things versus what is needed to cancel the same (as if charges on my credit card are less of an issue for me than the possibility that online access might be temporarily delayed). In Consumer Reports case, you could not email or fill out an online form -- the single and only option was a limited hours telephone number that required lengthy wait times. They know that many people will avoid the time sucking tax. Xbox Live had a particularly hilarious system where not only did you have to phone a call center and sit on hold, your cancellation had to be immediate (despite the fact that all payments were for future services, when you disabled recurrence they immediately downgraded your account) which of course is meant to delay people from jumping through the hoops until the last day when they might forget or give up and boom, another month.
While much noise was raised about Apple shaking down the subscription industry on the iOS platform, they will have to simply eat that cost because people like me have absolutely zero trust in the industry, and I greatly respect how Apple not only constantly reminds me of subscriptions, they make cancelling any of them the easiest thing in the world, so those services that want subscribers need to actually work
Recurrence is a tax on the world. It is inefficient and obnoxious companies that turn their business model towards unsavoury tactics rather than actually providing value that keeps people from wanting to be their customer.
1) By reading this post you agree to subscribe to future posts at the economical cost of $14.49 per month, billed bi-annually.
What you're describing is the MO for dishonest subscription services. But there's lots of subscription services that aren't dishonest and have very happy customers.
To your points:
1. While there are dishonest sites, I'm sure you also have numerous recurring subscriptions with a whole bunch of services where that's exactly what you agreed to, and what you want. Your internet provider, your mobile phone provider, your cable company, etc. I realize you may have had an issue with one company, but that doesn't mean the subscription model can't be used in an honest, customer-focused way. I have subscriptions with utilities, online content services (Spotify), and even a podcast network and for 90% of situations, it works fine and there's no trick or scam.
2. I totally agree that companies should make it easy to cancel, and it's despicable if they don't. It's also generally bad business practice because it hurts your relationship with them. But again, there's lots of companies with recurring subscription models that handle this right: just look at Netflix. Not only will they cancel easily, they'll also put your account on hold if you're going on vacation, etc.
"only option was a limited hours telephone number that required lengthy wait times."
You don't need to play their game. Send them a letter cancelling and revoking the authorization to charge your credit card. When they charge you anyway, send a letter to your bank informing them of the unauthorized charge. You'll get the chargeback. Send another letter to the AG of your state, too, complaining about the credit card fraud.
An important point is that it isn't for services rendered -- it's for services to be rendered in the future on receipt of payment. At the point of billing I owed them $0, and had received no service from them. A credit card number is the compound of the number and expiry day, and they essentially fabricated a new expiry date.
There are whole industries built around billing people for services they don't actually want, and this is just an example of it. I completely understand that it is normal across the industry, but it is incredibly scummy and puts deception and evasion ahead of providing actual value.
This depends a lot on the particulars of the individual subscription agreement. But in most cases, you owe for the services once the new subscription period starts, not when payment is received. (In most cases, your card company actually pays long after the services are rendered (30-60 days), anyway.)
You're saying this is a service you don't want, but it's unclear how the provider is supposed to guess that. You signed up for it, you haven't cancelled it, and now they're going to provide it and then seek payment for it. The failure to cancel is on you, not the provider. Even if you cancelled the card outright, in most good ToS, they'd still have a right to bill you directly for the service if you don't cancel.
Let's say I run a gym and you're a signed up member. If a new month starts, and you've got an active account, even if your card expires I'm still going to bill you for the month unless you come and tell me you want to cancel your membership. The two things are unrelated.
That said, I'm not sure he can complain that a recurring subscription continued to, well, recur.
Yes, I will complain. Intrinsic in the notion that I'm not bothering to update billing information after numerous updates telling me that it will cancel if I don't is the conclusion that the service, and billings, will cease. Credit cards have expiry dates for a reason, and ultimately it is fraud that they effectively manufactured my info for me.
I'd check the wording of those updates. It's usually that your service may be interrupted if you fail to update your credit card when it expires. And usually, the terms of the site say that you're on the hook for the recurring charge even if your card fails to clear.
You're hoping that the natural expiration cycle of your physical card - not the account - will impact a transaction that doesn't actually involve that physical implement. I can see where you're coming from, but I don't know that you really have a right to expect the expiration of your physical card to impact an existing business relationship with a third party that involves recurring charges (that you have likely agreed to pay regardless of your card's validity, or credit limit.)
I've worked on these kinds of renewal systems for large sites and generally, users don't mind them because the reverse case - where 4% of the users lose access each month because their physical card expired - sucks for both the site and the end users who don't expect access to be cut off.
If you want to use credit card changes as a shortcut for properly cancelling your subscription, you probably need to actually change the card number.
I have an entirely different perspective of Consumer Reports (the online variant which has external site ads on it).
Understand that they are entirely biased (as we all are): They take home the lucre by keeping you thinking that you need them, and that they're doing an important service. Hence why the big noise about things like not recommending the iPhone -- all just noise to keep the subscription dollars coming and to create a sense of utility. They're also prone to taking complex products and then trying to distill it into easily quantified values that they can put in a chart and categorize, leading to a detachment from real-world value and "need to fill this issue". I was a subscriber for several years and eventually came to realize that their top picks were usually not really top picks, and they were often in areas where they were entirely out of their depth (I discovered that particularly after buying a set of their top pick speakers).
After that print subscription ended, years later I was looking at getting a new furnace and saw that the online site listed furnace reviews, though they were hidden behind a paywall. Okay, bought a subscription to find that there were no reviews at all, but some useless summary about basic efficiency levels. Well that's useless. Oh well, a year subscription wasted. A year later I discovered that they auto-renewed (never signed up for that, but whatever), and put it on my todo list to jump through hoops to cancel at some point, wasting my time (as they give NO clear way to cancel, despite subscribing being a trivial painless step). The next year they sent me notice that my credit card had expired -- awesome, easy way to finally unsubscribe from an auto-renew that I didn't opt into without sitting on hold for half an hour! Imagine how funny I thought it was when they guessed my next expiry and just used that, continuing the subscription.
I have an extremely poor opinion of CU, and I think the belief that they're more pure or their opinion more useful is a bit naive.