This is the result of our current climate of corporate deregulation. If consumer protection agencies had any teeth at all, they would have rules against automatic charging of customers for services that are never provided. They would have rules about refunding money paid for services that were never provided. This is the dystopia the west hath wrought.

Bell is really just following the terms of service here. She should just initiate a charge back with her credit card company and let the two corporations battled it out.

This isn't really a good HN story. Companies do this sort of thing all the time, and the comment section is just going to be a predictable rage against the company. There really isn't a connection to any particular HN interest other than the vague fact that the particular charge being disputed happens to be about something electronic, but the story could just as easily be disputes about flower delivery or natural gas service.

(I am posting this because community standards do simply maintain themselves.)

Because tech startups are so good at handling customer support and managing expectations?

I somehow doubt you could accurately call a 138 years old company a "startup".

What do startups have to do with anything here?

Nothing wrong with rising an issue for awareness.

Is there anyone here not "aware" of this already? You can't raise "awareness" past 100%. The HN front page could be filled with nothing but this sort of sob story all day long. That's not what it's here for.