Re:Netflix stops charging customers who never watch
by zepearl on Saturday May 23, 2020 @04:57AM
(#23281308)
The post was probably referring to companies/subscriptions in general. The "contract" is separate from the method & frequency of the payments => even if you stop paying you still own them the old&new amount(s) as long as the contract hasn't been cancelled/terminated.
Re:Netflix stops charging customers who never watch
by kalleboo on Saturday May 23, 2020 @05:34AM
(#23281520)
Companies in Germany will actually keep raking up your debt and call a collections agency on you. It's horrible.
Re:Netflix stops charging customers who never watch
by amelius on Saturday May 23, 2020 @03:54AM
(#23280902)
They could leave your account open, wait 10 years, then sue you for not paying your bills.
Re:Netflix stops charging customers who never watch
by reificator on Saturday May 23, 2020 @04:23AM
(#23281100)
They could do that, yes. They could also open an account automatically in your name and then sue you over it. I expect both would be equally successful.
Re:Netflix stops charging customers who never watch
by amelius on Saturday May 23, 2020 @09:46AM
(#23282893)
The former could be a natural consequence of neglect + shareholders asking why the cash influx is too low considering the number of actual subscribers.
The latter would be fraud.
Re:Netflix stops charging customers who never watch
by perl4ever on Saturday May 23, 2020 @11:58AM
(#23283977)
Many if not most agreements these days seem to specify charging up front and reserve the right to cancel your service for any reason, so credit doesn't enter into it. I don't know about Netflix specifically.
What seems more likely is that they would blacklist you if you're obnoxious.
Netflix subscriptions are prepaid. What on earth would give them the idea to sue if your card is declined?
If your current month runs out and your renewal is declined, they just don't authorize you for a second month of service. There's no breach of contract, there's no debt for services rendered, I can't think of a single motivation to sue for this.
What am I missing here?