4 ms·

Using your stored CC info to auto-bill you for an unrelated product that you never consented to be billed for is quite likely in violation of their merchant agr

Using your stored CC info to auto-bill you for an unrelated product that you never consented to be billed for is quite likely in violation of their merchant agreement with the CC processor.

eurleif 13y ago
Isn't it straight-up fraud and/or theft?
- meritt 13y ago
  In the event a customer is actually charged for said service, it absolutely is. I have a feeling the attention they're about to garner will correct that prior to ever occurring.
  - cookingrobot 13y ago
    Even if they don't succeed, it seems like an attempted theft.
    - rhizome 13y ago
      More like fraud.
      - waps 13y ago
        If it's really fraud, there's criminal liability. Meaning the person behind it is responsible, as well as the firm.
- AJ007 13y ago
  Giving the amount of money charged, they move in to grand larceny territory. The fact that they had to force an enrollment means this "product" they are selling may either be non existent or not match up anywhere near what they claim it is doing.
ceejayoz 13y ago
If it isn't, the chargeback rate they're about to have should do the trick.
- notahacker 13y ago
  I hope they lose more than their merchant account for this, (better: their status as a registrar, with their executives winding up in a US court) Who approved this and were they insane? The most ludicrous thing about it is that being Network Solutions is basically a license to print money (with industry-leading margins) because of a large legacy customer base who aren't aware or simply don't care that they've been the most expensive, rather than the only game in town for years. So you provoke them into caring? It's like being a casino that steals from your customers. At gunpoint.
mey 13y ago
http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/regecg.htm http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/regecg.htm They would be in violation of this above Regulation for banking. Chargeback through your bank would be the quickest way to both get your funds back and penalize them. If you want to make it a federal case that is also an option.
- Crito 13y ago
  Is there any chance that they can weasel their way out of this by having their lawyers point to fine print?
  - mey 13y ago
    In theory their ToS may cover something like this, but charging a customer for a recurring payment they did not agree too should be pretty clear cut. Additionally they did send a notification prior to the charge, but there is no prior authorization from the customer so that's shaky ground. IANAL etc, legal counsel could tell you if there is a case worth pressing. I only deal with this fun at work as a developer :) Edit: This is pretty clearly not an "error" in the system, so their legal team (if there is one) must consider the billing valid in some way. Full legal text http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-1350.html http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-1350.html Edit 2: A compliant either though your local attorney general or the FTC may be appropriate. http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0341-file-complaint-ftc http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0341-file-complaint-ftc
  - _red 13y ago
    IANAL, however my whole family is. I doubt they could do that. People are often afraid of such fine print gotcha's but would almost always would not stand up in court. Contracts are assumed to be "In good faith, and neither for nor against any particular side". Meaning having a clause like 'oh yeah, in addition to your yearly fee of $10, we can also charge you any unlimited amount and you agree to pay' This would be easily deemed as not in good faith and completely in favor of them (as no sane person would agree to that). Hence judge would throw it out - which may or may not invalidate the entire contract depending on how shady the judge thought they were being.
inglor 13y ago
I actually think what he did (making a big mess out of it so it ends in HN) is likely the right thing to do, it'll likely solve the issue faster and punish them more severely.
larrys 13y ago
Competitor of Network Solutions here. Impossible for me to believe they are actually doing this. And auto charging the credit card. Something doesn't add up with this.
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  The official (verified by Twitter) Network Solutions @netsolcares account says it's a real e-mail.
larholm 13y ago
It is also most definitely illegal here in Denmark, and probably a whole host of other countries.

Using your stored CC info to auto-bill you for an unrelated product that you never consented to be billed for is quite likely in violation of their merchant agreement with the CC processor.

eurleif 13y ago

Isn't it straight-up fraud and/or theft?

meritt 13y ago
In the event a customer is actually charged for said service, it absolutely is. I have a feeling the attention they're about to garner will correct that prior to ever occurring.
- cookingrobot 13y ago
  Even if they don't succeed, it seems like an attempted theft.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    More like fraud.
    - waps 13y ago
      If it's really fraud, there's criminal liability. Meaning the person behind it is responsible, as well as the firm.
AJ007 13y ago
Giving the amount of money charged, they move in to grand larceny territory. The fact that they had to force an enrollment means this "product" they are selling may either be non existent or not match up anywhere near what they claim it is doing.

ceejayoz 13y ago

If it isn't, the chargeback rate they're about to have should do the trick.

notahacker 13y ago
I hope they lose more than their merchant account for this, (better: their status as a registrar, with their executives winding up in a US court) Who approved this and were they insane? The most ludicrous thing about it is that being Network Solutions is basically a license to print money (with industry-leading margins) because of a large legacy customer base who aren't aware or simply don't care that they've been the most expensive, rather than the only game in town for years. So you provoke them into caring? It's like being a casino that steals from your customers. At gunpoint.

mey 13y ago

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/regecg.htm http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/regecg.htm They would be in violation of this above Regulation for banking. Chargeback through your bank would be the quickest way to both get your funds back and penalize them. If you want to make it a federal case that is also an option.

Crito 13y ago
Is there any chance that they can weasel their way out of this by having their lawyers point to fine print?
- mey 13y ago
  In theory their ToS may cover something like this, but charging a customer for a recurring payment they did not agree too should be pretty clear cut. Additionally they did send a notification prior to the charge, but there is no prior authorization from the customer so that's shaky ground. IANAL etc, legal counsel could tell you if there is a case worth pressing. I only deal with this fun at work as a developer :) Edit: This is pretty clearly not an "error" in the system, so their legal team (if there is one) must consider the billing valid in some way. Full legal text http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-1350.html http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-1350.html Edit 2: A compliant either though your local attorney general or the FTC may be appropriate. http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0341-file-complaint-ftc http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0341-file-complaint-ftc
- _red 13y ago
  IANAL, however my whole family is. I doubt they could do that. People are often afraid of such fine print gotcha's but would almost always would not stand up in court. Contracts are assumed to be "In good faith, and neither for nor against any particular side". Meaning having a clause like 'oh yeah, in addition to your yearly fee of $10, we can also charge you any unlimited amount and you agree to pay' This would be easily deemed as not in good faith and completely in favor of them (as no sane person would agree to that). Hence judge would throw it out - which may or may not invalidate the entire contract depending on how shady the judge thought they were being.

inglor 13y ago

I actually think what he did (making a big mess out of it so it ends in HN) is likely the right thing to do, it'll likely solve the issue faster and punish them more severely.

larrys 13y ago

Competitor of Network Solutions here. Impossible for me to believe they are actually doing this. And auto charging the credit card. Something doesn't add up with this.

ceejayoz 13y ago
The official (verified by Twitter) Network Solutions @netsolcares account says it's a real e-mail.

larholm 13y ago

It is also most definitely illegal here in Denmark, and probably a whole host of other countries.