The rule is pretty simple: you have to be able to cancel a subscription the same way you signed up for it. If you used the Internet to sign up there better be a fucking button that allows you to cancel.
I cancelled my mobile contract in Germany last month, and I had to submit in their web portal that I wished to cancel, and then call them to confirm the cancellation.
Yes, Drillisch is one of the companies currently simply ignoring the law. They will probably continue to do so until they get successfully sued and/or fined into compliance.
Here in Paraná there’s a rather old law against that too, from 2007. Back then the concern was phone companies and credit card companies doing it, but the law was worded in a surprisingly sensible way, so it protects customers against online roach motels too. I’ll coarsely translate it from Portuguese, (sourced from p203):
Law #15627, 18/Sep/2007
*Enforces that providers of continued services are required to ensure to customers the ability to request the cancellation of the service through the same means which the acquisition was requested, as specified.
Article #1 - Providers of continued services are required to offer to customers the ability to request the cancellation of services through the same means which the acquisition [of said services] was requested.
Article #2 - Furthermore they should provide cancellation means through phone, internet, or mail.
Article #3 - For the effects of this law, as “continued services”, without implying exclusion of similar [services]:
I - subscription of newspapers, magazines, and other periodic publications;
II - paid television, internet providers, landed or mobile telephone lines, data transmission and aggregated services;
III - gym academies and open courses;
IV - capitalisation titles and insurance bonds;
V - credit cards and “discount cards”.
It seems that the governor back then was already expecting companies to rule-lawyer and say “ackshyually we aren’t offering [service], we’re offering [same service under different name], so it doesn’t apply to us”, so the way that article #3 was worded basically lists examples, not an exhaustive list. As much as I hate that specific governor I can’t help but think that he did a good job with this law.
It was made illegal in the EU years ago.
The rule is pretty simple: you have to be able to cancel a subscription the same way you signed up for it. If you used the Internet to sign up there better be a fucking button that allows you to cancel.
And California, which is like the EU of the US when it comes to consumer protection and privacy laws
Just a heads up you posted this 3 times
Damn, thanks for the info. I used Boost, it told me it failed/timed out the first two times and only displayed the third, successful, attempt.
Heads up - this identical comment seems to have posted three times.
Thanks. Looks like Boost still has some kinks, I got timeout messages for the first two attempts and they weren’t shown to me either.
I cancelled my mobile contract in Germany last month, and I had to submit in their web portal that I wished to cancel, and then call them to confirm the cancellation.
It was with Klarmobil.
Yes, Drillisch is one of the companies currently simply ignoring the law. They will probably continue to do so until they get successfully sued and/or fined into compliance.
https://stadt-bremerhaven.de/online-kuendigungsbutton-kaum-ein-anbieter-setzt-ihn-aktuell-gesetzeskonform-um/
Just a heads up you posted this 3 times
Here in Paraná there’s a rather old law against that too, from 2007. Back then the concern was phone companies and credit card companies doing it, but the law was worded in a surprisingly sensible way, so it protects customers against online roach motels too. I’ll coarsely translate it from Portuguese, (sourced from p203):
Law #15627, 18/Sep/2007
*Enforces that providers of continued services are required to ensure to customers the ability to request the cancellation of the service through the same means which the acquisition was requested, as specified.
It seems that the governor back then was already expecting companies to rule-lawyer and say “ackshyually we aren’t offering [service], we’re offering [same service under different name], so it doesn’t apply to us”, so the way that article #3 was worded basically lists examples, not an exhaustive list. As much as I hate that specific governor I can’t help but think that he did a good job with this law.
Heads up, you posted this 3 times!
Just so you know, you posted this 3 times.