4 ms·

>What's crazy is there is so much straight pure scam crap on the internet the FTC does nothing about. >In my case I tried to cancel a subscription 30 days in a

>What's crazy is there is so much straight pure scam crap on the internet the FTC does nothing about. >In my case I tried to cancel a subscription 30 days in advance recently (nearly 1K per year). It turns out you have to cancel 90 days in advance but not more than 120 days in advance?? So now I'm on the hook for another 1K. >And instead of the click to sign up, I had to go through endless hoops. Talked to someone, then they wanted me to submit a case, I did that, then back and forth to "verify" me etc etc. >The FTC is crickets on just endless false advertising, misleading internet offers etc (stuff that's not even close to OK). I share your frustration, however I suspect this is more an indictment of our industry than FTC's apathy. Of course the FTC and other regulatory bodies are pursing enterprises for behavior other than that described in the link, but it may understandably be perceived that nothing is being done about those other egregious behaviors due simply to the sheer volume of occurrence. This industry is rife with user-hostile behavior. It's become so commonplace you'll find these purveyors openly discussing it as if there isn't anything wrong with what they are doing; industry "best practices." It's insane.

mountainb 5y ago
They do bring suits against scammers pretty regularly, but they only really go after very successful scammers who have stolen 7-8 figures+ from their victims. The FTC does not have the resources to go after smaller claims. They leave that up to civil plaintiff to at least somewhat rectify. They're not as inactive as you think it's just that there's a LOT of federal crime that goes unpunished. The federal government in general is only capable of effectively pursuing a small sample of federal crimes that occur. This has a lot to do with the way that we finance our regulators -- a lot of these crimes could be handled on a bounty system, which would fix the manpower problems.
- slownews45 5y ago
  But even going against big players like Amazon, why can't they say - hey, you are selling products with totally false descriptions, refund everyone who but the fake "apple certified" device, or the "UL listed" device. Just do mass refunds across 10's of thousands of customers. Instead they are going after Apple. In my experience at least least scammy company out there. My refunds go through, the warranty / applecare stuff works, subscription renewals are fair and easy to cancel, no * fine print on trials.
  - Nicksil 5y ago
    >But even going against big players like Amazon, why can't they say - hey, you are selling products with totally false descriptions, refund everyone who but the fake "apple certified" device, or the "UL listed" device. Just do mass refunds across 10's of thousands of customers. Do we know for a fact that there is no activity here, that the FTC (or other bodies) aren't currently building cases or performing investigations?
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      We as in the public have not been told this is underway. Nor have we heard hints, leaks or anything of the sort. This is not happening right now based on the available information.
      - Nicksil 5y ago
        >We as in the public have not been told this is underway. Nor have we heard hints, leaks or anything of the sort. >This is not happening right now based on the available information. If we continue with that logic -- an apparent lack of information regarding active investigations -- the only conclusion that makes sense is "we don't know."
      - mountainb 5y ago
        Every federal agency that has anything to do with consumer products sends Amazon warning letters all the time regarding specific sellers and individuals, including the FTC, telling AMZ to knuckle down on the seller and/or the brand, or vaguely telling Amazon "do something" which Amazon may misinterpret. Then there are the more significant inquiries that are also going on apart from those 'market, regulate thyself' actions.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Khan has only held the chair for two months. FTC has had other priorities in the past, but given her publishing history it's a good bet that Amazon is now under scrutiny as well.
  - 5y ago
- Nicksil 5y ago
  >They're not as inactive as you think I don't think they're inactive. I tried to convey that by describing what may be perceived as "doing nothing" is really the inundation of awful behavior in this industry.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
  Civil litigation is one version of a bounty system.
- rhacker 5y ago
  What's crappy is the long tail of these scams is probably 10 times bigger than the single largest scam.
hellbannedguy 5y ago
"In my case I tried to cancel a subscription 30 days in advance recently (nearly 1K per year). It turns out you have to cancel 90 days in advance but not more than 120 days in advance?? So now I'm on the hook for another 1K." I believe you can put a stop payment at the bank. At my bank they charge $30. When the creditor calls the bank, they will read to the creditor the reason you are not paying.
- mattlondon 5y ago
  Not paying does not absolve you of your contractual obligations though. I had a service that I just stopped paying for once, assuming that they'd cancel my account when the money stopped coming. False - they kept billing me then sold my "debt" to a debt-collection firm who called me at work etc.
  - slownews45 5y ago
    When I was young I learned this the very hard way. I moved. Called to cancel my cable service. Person said no problem, box up modem and leave it outside. I did that. Never thought of it again for 4-5 years until I was trying to rent a place in my own name. Yep, the retention specialist 5 years ago met his numbers by NOT cancelling me out. So I had something like an extra 12 months of charges plus modem cost plus a credit hit. Because I really need this place to live in (3 others were depending on it/me) I ended up coughing up a ton of money. Lessons learned.
    - bickeringyokel 5y ago
      Sounds like in that case you were a victim of fraud rather than avoiding your contractual obligations?
      - shadilay 5y ago
        "fraud" is when you don't have lawyers to get you out of the problem.
ABCLAW 5y ago
>This industry is rife with user-hostile behavior. It's become so commonplace you'll find these purveyors openly discussing it as if there isn't anything wrong with what they are doing; industry "best practices. The interesting part is that the comment you're replying to attempts to normalize a number of anti-competitive strategies employed by Facebook in the exact same way. Supernormalization at work - if your institutions get defanged, people 'learn' to accept the new status quo as the way of things.

mountainb 5y ago

They do bring suits against scammers pretty regularly, but they only really go after very successful scammers who have stolen 7-8 figures+ from their victims. The FTC does not have the resources to go after smaller claims. They leave that up to civil plaintiff to at least somewhat rectify. They're not as inactive as you think it's just that there's a LOT of federal crime that goes unpunished. The federal government in general is only capable of effectively pursuing a small sample of federal crimes that occur. This has a lot to do with the way that we finance our regulators -- a lot of these crimes could be handled on a bounty system, which would fix the manpower problems.

slownews45 5y ago
But even going against big players like Amazon, why can't they say - hey, you are selling products with totally false descriptions, refund everyone who but the fake "apple certified" device, or the "UL listed" device. Just do mass refunds across 10's of thousands of customers. Instead they are going after Apple. In my experience at least least scammy company out there. My refunds go through, the warranty / applecare stuff works, subscription renewals are fair and easy to cancel, no * fine print on trials.
- Nicksil 5y ago
  >But even going against big players like Amazon, why can't they say - hey, you are selling products with totally false descriptions, refund everyone who but the fake "apple certified" device, or the "UL listed" device. Just do mass refunds across 10's of thousands of customers. Do we know for a fact that there is no activity here, that the FTC (or other bodies) aren't currently building cases or performing investigations?
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    We as in the public have not been told this is underway. Nor have we heard hints, leaks or anything of the sort. This is not happening right now based on the available information.
    - Nicksil 5y ago
      >We as in the public have not been told this is underway. Nor have we heard hints, leaks or anything of the sort. >This is not happening right now based on the available information. If we continue with that logic -- an apparent lack of information regarding active investigations -- the only conclusion that makes sense is "we don't know."
    - mountainb 5y ago
      Every federal agency that has anything to do with consumer products sends Amazon warning letters all the time regarding specific sellers and individuals, including the FTC, telling AMZ to knuckle down on the seller and/or the brand, or vaguely telling Amazon "do something" which Amazon may misinterpret. Then there are the more significant inquiries that are also going on apart from those 'market, regulate thyself' actions.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  Khan has only held the chair for two months. FTC has had other priorities in the past, but given her publishing history it's a good bet that Amazon is now under scrutiny as well.
- 5y ago
Nicksil 5y ago
>They're not as inactive as you think I don't think they're inactive. I tried to convey that by describing what may be perceived as "doing nothing" is really the inundation of awful behavior in this industry.
fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
Civil litigation is one version of a bounty system.
rhacker 5y ago
What's crappy is the long tail of these scams is probably 10 times bigger than the single largest scam.

hellbannedguy 5y ago

"In my case I tried to cancel a subscription 30 days in advance recently (nearly 1K per year). It turns out you have to cancel 90 days in advance but not more than 120 days in advance?? So now I'm on the hook for another 1K." I believe you can put a stop payment at the bank. At my bank they charge $30. When the creditor calls the bank, they will read to the creditor the reason you are not paying.

mattlondon 5y ago
Not paying does not absolve you of your contractual obligations though. I had a service that I just stopped paying for once, assuming that they'd cancel my account when the money stopped coming. False - they kept billing me then sold my "debt" to a debt-collection firm who called me at work etc.
- slownews45 5y ago
  When I was young I learned this the very hard way. I moved. Called to cancel my cable service. Person said no problem, box up modem and leave it outside. I did that. Never thought of it again for 4-5 years until I was trying to rent a place in my own name. Yep, the retention specialist 5 years ago met his numbers by NOT cancelling me out. So I had something like an extra 12 months of charges plus modem cost plus a credit hit. Because I really need this place to live in (3 others were depending on it/me) I ended up coughing up a ton of money. Lessons learned.
  - bickeringyokel 5y ago
    Sounds like in that case you were a victim of fraud rather than avoiding your contractual obligations?
    - shadilay 5y ago
      "fraud" is when you don't have lawyers to get you out of the problem.

ABCLAW 5y ago

>This industry is rife with user-hostile behavior. It's become so commonplace you'll find these purveyors openly discussing it as if there isn't anything wrong with what they are doing; industry "best practices. The interesting part is that the comment you're replying to attempts to normalize a number of anti-competitive strategies employed by Facebook in the exact same way. Supernormalization at work - if your institutions get defanged, people 'learn' to accept the new status quo as the way of things.