4 ms·

There need to be laws that you cannot advertise anything as "free" or "introductory price" if it's amortized into a longer contract. A common tactic in Canada

There need to be laws that you cannot advertise anything as "free" or "introductory price" if it's amortized into a longer contract. A common tactic in Canada is to say "$4/mo for the first three months" but when you sign a contract for $12/mo over a year commitment. This should be treated as straight-up fraud. The price is clearly $10/mo and they're just deferring some payments.

kevincox 5y ago
I don't mind too much if the continuing price is obvious. But most of the time the ongoing price is in the fine print or completely missing. I wouldn't mind a law that says the continuing prices needs to be at least as visible as the promotional price.
- account42 5y ago
  Really it should be required that the most visible number is the minimum amount you will pay in total if you cancel right away.
charrondev 5y ago
Quebec has separate civil law from the rest of Canada and our consumer protection act prohibits this kind of behaviour (with very clear case law and precedence siding against companies). As a result though there are a fair amount of companies that will have these trial offers everywhere except Quebec. Spotify is one that comes to mind.
- holiveros 5y ago
  Indeed, yet it sometimes gets annoying; you see a nice promotion somewhere only to find out "not available in Québec" :(
  - adiM 5y ago
    Which often means that there was some dark pattern in the offer which violated Quebec's law (or possibly they did not want to bother dealing with Quebec's language law...all content must also be available in French...which can be a deterrent as well)
  - hyakosm 5y ago
    If other states/provinces in North America had the same law, those companies would be forced to propose really free trials.
- hyakosm 5y ago
  Some big companies (Amazon or Apple) breaks the law by offering a free month of Prime or Apple Music in Quebec.
legalcorrection 5y ago
What if it’s $4 for three months and then $12 in perpetuity, with no commitment.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- peeters 5y ago
  Then it's not lying and I have no problem with it, as long as the continuing price is clearly presented at the time of sale.

kevincox 5y ago

I don't mind too much if the continuing price is obvious. But most of the time the ongoing price is in the fine print or completely missing. I wouldn't mind a law that says the continuing prices needs to be at least as visible as the promotional price.

account42 5y ago
Really it should be required that the most visible number is the minimum amount you will pay in total if you cancel right away.

charrondev 5y ago

Quebec has separate civil law from the rest of Canada and our consumer protection act prohibits this kind of behaviour (with very clear case law and precedence siding against companies). As a result though there are a fair amount of companies that will have these trial offers everywhere except Quebec. Spotify is one that comes to mind.

holiveros 5y ago
Indeed, yet it sometimes gets annoying; you see a nice promotion somewhere only to find out "not available in Québec" :(
- adiM 5y ago
  Which often means that there was some dark pattern in the offer which violated Quebec's law (or possibly they did not want to bother dealing with Quebec's language law...all content must also be available in French...which can be a deterrent as well)
- hyakosm 5y ago
  If other states/provinces in North America had the same law, those companies would be forced to propose really free trials.
hyakosm 5y ago
Some big companies (Amazon or Apple) breaks the law by offering a free month of Prime or Apple Music in Quebec.

legalcorrection 5y ago

What if it’s $4 for three months and then $12 in perpetuity, with no commitment.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
peeters 5y ago
Then it's not lying and I have no problem with it, as long as the continuing price is clearly presented at the time of sale.