Home Forums FineTunedMac Community Lounge dark patterns

This youtube video shows something that may have caught many of us.

My own experience was: I had an interesting issue with my local newspaper, Kingston Daily Freeman. They started to limit the number of articles that you could read per month and wanted a monthly subscription fee. That was not a problem; I do that with the NY Times. Unfortunately, even after signing up and having the fee automatically charged to a credit card, I was unable to get those articles. Tech Support was no help, and they didn't call me back when I asked for their IT department. It was impossible to change my method of payment via my account, not to mention that it was not possible to opt out.

Ultimately, after consulting with the bank that issued the credit card, I cancelled the card and got a new number. Now, I no longer pay for the service that I could not get in the first place.

You bumped into a little known "hitch" when giving authorization to assign payments to your credit card. Once you have done so, you cannot take away the authorization ....only the organization to whom you've assigned the right can do so.

When I learned that, I started being very careful about allowing "regular charges" to my card.

You would think that in this time of fewer and fewer people and organizations supporting (print) media outlets, those outlets would be exquisitely sensitive to consumer wants and needs. Not to mention the slagging that 'disreputable' ~ 'less than reputable' such outlets are heir to in social media when they screw over loyal patrons.

If it were me and I had a social media account, my desire for retribution would guide my actions. At the very least I would badmouth the Kingston Daily Freeman to all and sundry in my circle of friends and acquaintances. Kingston ain't that big that it wouldn't get back to them, even if you didn't directly call the CEO and editor-in-chief with your grievance.

That has not been my experience. I have canceled automatic credit card payments with more than one organization without having to cancel the card itself. Of course, it might vary with other businesses.

I think that you misunderstood. You and Ryck have said the same thing.

When I called the bank that issued the credit card, they told me that only the organization (i.e. the Kingston Freeman) could cancel automatic payments. The bank itself could not. Therefore, my best recourse was to cancel the credit card.

Ahh:
me-->organization-->bank-->cancel.
Not allowed:
me-->bank-->cancel

Color me naive, but in the case of voluntary payments such as charitable contributions, wouldn't full and fair disclosure demand that you be advised that you're entering into an irrevocable, by you, anyhow, agreement before you click "OK"?

This can be insidious, rather than merely a "dirty trick" of the type the article is really concerned with.

You'd think so but I've never seen such a disclosure. You'd also think that the person who giveth the authorization should also be the person who taketh it away. I assume that's the way it works with a bank account. Hmmmm.....perhaps it's time to check.

I have very few auto-charges against my credit cards....limiting them to a couple of utilities. With monthly payment options,like charities, I just opt for a single one-time lump sum.

I guess that at least part of the problem is that many auto-payments are contractual obligations, and those are rightfully controlled by the recipient.

Looks like there's a need for different protocols for different situations.

Yes, a contract is a contract, so I can see why BOTH parties are expected to meet their obligations (i.e. a set amount for a set period of time for a set service/product).

However, the difference in this scenario - if I have understood correctly - is that the OP was NOT getting the full service to which he had subscribed. So, I think the onus was on the newspaper to (a) either give him the full product/service OR (b) initiate the cancellation of auto-payments (i.e. "de-authorize", if you will) on the credit card as requested by the OP. Either (a) or (b) would have be the honourable thing for the newspaper to do, IMHO.

That is exactly right. I tried, many times, to contact the newspaper via telephone, email, and actually going into their office. Although the office personnel tried to be helpful, my emails were never answered and my phone calls were in vain.

I could sign into my account and view my payment options, but I could not change them nor could I cancel the account. When using the exact same password to access an article, I got a message that I needed to sign in! I reset the password and got the same result (this was upon advice from so-called tech support).

Finally, I became sufficiently disgusted and used the nuclear option. BTW, a few weeks ago, they newspaper sent me a letter (USPS) thanking me for subscribing to their physical paper, which I had never done. They also asked me to renew. Fat chance of that!!!

Oh, absolutely!

But honor in business is almost an oxymoron these days.