6 ms·

So I went through their checkout process, and up until the credit card stage there is zero indication that it's a membership site (I read everything on every pa

• robryan 14y ago
  So the site doesn't force you to join the VIP program? The way it is structured would definitely see a lot of people check it and click through without checking. In my experience stuff we make a lot more obvious than this is plain ignored during checkout.
  • reitzensteinm 14y ago
    Just tried it without the checkbox ticked, and it does appear to be mandatory. "You must read and agree to the JustFab VIP Membership Terms of Service." Which makes sense - I bet they're making a killing on zombie subscription fees and little on legitimate users.
    • raphman 14y ago
      And there does not seem to be any opt-out option in the profile settings (at least not without having completed checkout).
    • robryan 14y ago
      Even that line which you say comes up when you don't check the box is likely to be misread by users who are used to having to check a terms of service box on most of everything.
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
• bmj1 14y ago
  Thank you for posting the screenshot. A clear example of a UI anti-pattern IMO. http://wiki.darkpatterns.org/Main_Page http://wiki.darkpatterns.org/Main_Page
  • antonej 14y ago
    Note that regardless of what the screen shot looks like today, it's very possible the site already improved its disclosure in response to complaints/threats. It would be interesting to go back in time and compare the disclosure at launch to what's on the site today.
• chinmoy 14y ago
  Thanks for the screenshot. This is outrageous IMO. Few people will notice that the TOS checkbox actually reads "JustFAB VIP membership program". Most people will take it as a normal TOAS checkbox that you have to agree every time you order from any website. So, yes, the page is designed to be misleading a.ka scam some subscription fees.
  • true_religion 14y ago
    However the entire right side of the screen is about the VIP program. What exactly could people instead be lured into thinking they're doing here?
    • chinmoy 14y ago
      Considering the fact that, you end up on the checkout page trying to purchase an item, the jibber-jabber on the right side hardly helps.
      • true_religion 14y ago
        Well all their copy tells me that they're a personalized "boutique" aka personal shopper who chooses items for you based on your style. I'd expect that to be a re-occurring cost. I suppose it may be out of the norm of some people, especially the HN crowd, but this kind of thing isn't really unusual. Brick and mortar stores have VIP programs all the time.
        • columbo 14y ago
          > Brick and mortar stores have VIP programs all the time. Yes. But you can also show up and buy a pair of shoes. I don't believe what you are describing is a fair analogy. When I order a pair of shoes I expect a pair of shoes. I don't expect a hat, jacket, or a personalized VIP shopper. On this website if I pretend to order a pair of shoes there isn't anything to indicate (aside from the fine print) that I'll be receiving more than a pair of shoes. I'd expect this place to suffer a pretty serious class-action lawsuit soon. If I was an investor I'd run as far away as possible.
• vog 14y ago
  I don't know about the US, but here in Germany you can't put that kind of stuff into your terms and conditions. Well, you could, but those terms would be ineffective. Of course, this doesn't help if they succeed to intimidate the victim. But if the victim doesn't pay, there's nothing the scammer can do, because this case would never succeed in court. Having said that, it might help if the victim complains to the police. Depending on how serious customer protection is taken in the US, this business might be more than merely "unethical".
  • revelation 14y ago
    Not only ineffective, but its planned to make this deceipt downright illegal. You have to state all of the costs in clearly readable text on the signup page itself and change the button to indicate that you are signing up with recurring costs.
  • brador 14y ago
    Simple solution is check your CC statements regularly for discrepencies and request a chargeback from your card provider if you get scammed. Enough charge backs and they lose their merchant account. Most Credit cards users don't realize just how simple it is to run a charge back. It is literally one short phone call.
    • RealGeek 14y ago
      There are plenty of offshore credit card processing companies & banks who provide "high risk billing" solutions for scammy businesses like this one.
• ricardobeat 14y ago
  Maybe I'm being too permissive, but that screen doesn't look fishy at all. I went through the purchasing/sign-up process, and it goes like this: 1. create a profile (answer questions on style) 2. fill in details, click a *JOIN NOW* button 3. get a "*first month* for 50% off" offer 4. get to this payment screen At no point it implies you are buying a single product, there are no "buy now" buttons or calls to action. To me it's pretty clear that it's a recurring service, like many others that exist for chocolate, wine, beer, socks, razors, etc. The right hand side on the checkout is clear enough, and the skip the month part is there highlighted, not in small letters. EDIT: apparently this is just the flow after choosing something on the home page. If you choose one of the "special" products or go to the Featured section, it does go through a standard add to cart + checkout flow (http://minus.com/lA7snPkHUHOZR http://minus.com/lA7snPkHUHOZR). That is actually terribly misleading.
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  • jiggy2011 14y ago
    It would seem reasonable that to assume "skip the month" just means "don't buy anything this month" as opposed to having to do a specific action. After all , it would seem strange to be voluntarily charged unnecessarily.
  • pbreit 14y ago
    But its not like any other subscription sites I'm aware of. The huge differences is that you have to visit the site each month or you'll be billed and receive NO product. I was prepared to disagree with OP but the model does seem a little customer-hostile.
    • rory096 14y ago
      The grandparent's link says "Each credit can be redeemed for any JustFab style on the site." Seems to me that they're saying if you're a member but didn't make your decision for your free (sunk cost) product by the 6th, they charge you and turn it into store credit. It's not like they're charging you and saying "too bad, you don't get anything."
• nsns 14y ago
  I agree it's unethical. This is a commercial site, it tries to offer goods in exchange for money, anything that costs money should be emphasized and explained. How would they feel if someone managed to take some of their merchandise by stealth? I don't think this is some grey area: if you tricked me into paying a sum I never chose to pay, you're stealing money off my pocket.
  • simias 14y ago
    That reminds me of certain ads I sometimes see on the french TV for ringtones or silly phone games: if you read the small print you realize they actually offer a membership, not a product, and you actually pay something like 3 euros a week instead of a one-time fee. They call that "clubs" or something. Those ads usually seem to target teenagers (they're mostly on music channels or channels aimed at kids) who probably aren't in charge of the bill and if they're not careful they might end up with a bad surprise. This is beyond shoddy.
    • deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    • tripzilch 14y ago
      Thankfully that shit has been made illegal in the Netherlands a few years ago. One of the more important motivations was, like you say, how blatantly those scams are targeted at teenagers.
  • fleitz 14y ago
    It depends on how you do it, you could definitely use mail laws about unsolicited mail to get a package you didn't solicit delivered to your door. If you can do this then you can keep the goods. The law like anything else is a system, justfab is exploiting it for fun and profit.
    • tripzilch 14y ago
      If you'd care to re-read the GP post, you'll find he's talking about ethics, not laws. I really hope you are aware of the difference.
• sltkr 14y ago
  At least the bullet points on the right clearly describe how the site works. I'm not saying it's not misleading, but I think OP's complaint that customers have to “read their entire 2,500 words Terms of Service” to see what the deal is, is basically wrong. (Also you don't get “nothing” for $39.95; you get store credit. That sucks if you didn't want any, of course, but given the fact that people actively sign up to be able to purchase from that store, I can't imagine it's entirely worthless.)
• tlogan 14y ago
  I wonder how this company (and these kind of companies) can keep their merchant account open for so long. There has to be some trick here. For example, maybe they keep enough to funds for last 6 months of chargebacks and have some special kick-back to bank? Or maybe the game plan is to always open a new merchant account after the first one is closed? Or maybe the bar is so low and they never need to worry to lose their merchant account?
  • dsl 14y ago
    You sign up for what is called a "High Risk" merchant account. Porn sites, bail bonds, check cashing locations, dating sites, weight loss centers, and dozens of other types of businesses use this category of services which has a very high tolerance of chargebacks. The sad part is if you get enough chargebacks you can actually bake in a higher transaction cost and not have to pay per-chargeback fees like other normal merchants do.
• jdh 14y ago
  Regarding your comment: "It says you'll be billed month per month on the right hand side under the VIP membership program, but I think it's pretty clear that the page is engineered to be misleading." I'm sorry: you're talking about the section that explains "How the JustFab VIP Program Works"? Whose 4 bullet points say: 1. Get a boutique the first of the month 2. Browse and Buy 3. Don't like anything, skip 4. If you don't buy or skip by the 5th you'll be charged anyway? And a default unchecked box that you read and agree? I think the concept of "engineered to be misleading" might just put the points in say, a small font, or in the terms and conditions behind a link. If someone describes it clearly in bold font in a section explaining how the site works, well, that's a pretty strange way of misleading people.
  • tripzilch 14y ago
    The misleading part is that (in at least one common usage path), the site sets itself up to look like every other online shopping site. The kind that people expect to use by putting stuff in their "shopping cart" and proceed to "checkout" and pay once. Think of the people in your life not quite as tech-savvy as yourself, like maybe your next-door neighbour or your mother. Would you expect them not to be misled by this? Sure, I'd hope my mother would be critical enough to notice, but I can easily see it happen otherwise. Another indication is, I assume that a lot of people who do notice will instead decide to bail out entirely and not buy anything, rather than (like I would do, if I really wanted the item) pay, log in, and cancel the account immediately. Because that's not really an obvious thing to do, given the set expectation of being a regular online shopping store.
• jyothi 14y ago
  They must be seeing a large number of chargebacks which means visa or mastercard would be behind them to get this set right by the 2nd or 3rd month. I wonder how they managed to have the site up for so long - may be some kind of a high risk merchant account provider who approved their payment gateway.
• lakeeffect 14y ago
  Definitely unethical. The reason to buy says, "over half a million subscribers save hundreds a year". This statement could burn them in court if proven to not be a factual statement. I would surmise that it could be shown that the half a million subscribers paying $480 a year each, (240 million total) may not save hundreds a year. The least they would have to show for a forgiving jury would be that subscribers saved a total 100 million in personalized boutique purchases and general shipping. A demanding jury would require 340 million in savings. I would wager that argued by a savvy attorney the statement could be read as a misrepresentation in advertising. It would also be based on how it read at the time of original subscription, so there wouldn't be much value in changing the statement now and only provide more validity toward it being a misleading statement. The defense would argue that people read the the info on the right, understood the terms and checked the box in agreement. The prosecution would argue that the claims in bold of so many saving so much resulted in more making the purchase, which was a false misleading statement. Sales people make these types of claims all the time over the phone or in person to get a sale, putting it in writing is a huge mistake, and online retailers shouldn't be so brash.
• lakeeffect 14y ago
  Definitely unethical. The reason to buy says, "over half a million subscribers save hundreds a year". This statement could burn them in court if proven to not be a factual statement. I would surmise that it could be shown that the half a million subscribers paying $480 a year each, (240 million total) may not save hundreds a year. The least they would have to show for a forgiving jury would be that subscribers saved a total 100 million in personalized boutique purchases and general shipping. A demanding jury would require 340 million in savings. I would wager that argued by a savey attorney the statement could be read as a misrepresentation in advertising. It would also be based on how it read at the time of original subscription, so there wouldn't be much value in changing the statement now and only provide more validity toward it being a misleading statement. The defense would argue that people read the the box and understood the terms. Sales people make these types of claims all the time over the phone or in person to get a sale, putting it in writing is a huge mistake.