When I click that button, the recurring payment is automatically canceled, and the SaaS company can check that and know that I unsubscribed. Or something along these lines.
There is already a power-asymmetry between consumers and companies. This should not extend to unsubscribing. Here, the consumer should have all the power.
Chargeback is easy because it's under the card co's control. Deep link would require knowing the cancel page of every sub, plus handling auth factors. API connection would two way integration, with scoped auth between every bank and every service. Hopefully managed by an SI or aggregator, but the business model sounds hard (the bank doesn't mind the chargeback, the SaaS doesn't want the cancelation, so who pays?)
* https://www.visa.co.in/about-visa/newsroom/press-releases/vi... * https://pgi.billdesk.com/web/sihub
This already exists. Mastercard (and Visa?) has an API that lets banks notify subscriptions when your card changes to update the card number https://developer.mastercard.com/product/automatic-billing-u...
I'd be happy to just have the ability to easily ask the credit card company block further payments with no actual notification to the business besides that the monthly charges stop going through. If you want to be fancy about it, creat a custom industry standard declination reason for that use case.
All it needs is a "payment refused, user canceled service" response to billing and not to flag the billing attempt as fraud.
What I'm talking about is an official way to unsubscribe. One that the user fully controls, and is free of dark patterns.
[1] https://www.twilio.com/en-us/blog/insights/list-unsubscribe
Merchant's end up getting the short end of the stick in most cases.
Banks are barely running on a modern stack, let alone doing anything userful within banking, and you want them to build an api to cancel an outside service? :)?
Love this so much, most HN comment ever :)
Credit cards are also required to be "tokenized" when stored at a merchant or payment aggregator - the user authorizes the bank to allow the merchant or the aggregator to "store" the card details for use later, and the bank then issues a card token, tied to the specific merchant/aggregator. They are not allowed to store the original card info at all - just this token. This makes the token not worth stealing, as it can be only used by that merchant, and is trivial to de-auth if needed, with or without merchant cooperation.
If this is the way it works and the result are chargebacks it just means things cost more in general (cost of business will be factored in).
It's not a good thing.
I’ve shared examples in the article.
Put punitive terms into your SLA. (Though check with a lawyer about adhering to your merchant agreement.)
Charging back doesn’t cancel a contract. If you want to be vindictive, you could sell the debt to a collector.
The problem is that a “punitive” amount of liquidated damages is neither reasonable, nor would it typically be found to have been the product of an actual estimate of the damages. See, 356 cmt. a.
If you didn’t say “punitive” in the LD provision, you’d have the “reasonable estimate” conversation but GP straight up called it a punitive clause, which is not going to fly (in many jurisdictions, ianyl, etc. etc.)
Would note that the Restatement isn’t law, but an influential guideline. As long as the punitive terms are clearly agreed to, they ought to be able to fly. (Particularly if made in exchange for money, e.g. pay a premium to opt out of punitive cancellation.)
shrug. That's just the way it works.
Make it easier to unsubscribe than doing a chargeback. Your competitors who do that will have a lower cost and be able to undercut you and you'll go out of business.
That is a good thing.
How do you know people aren't already doing so? It's not about the competitors but the industry in general.
Have you not read the post I was replying to?
I quote: > People don't remember they signed up.
> They can't remember how to log in from a different device to cancel.
> It's easier to use their credit card app to dispute the charge.
> The company name is different than the product name
> A worker or family member signed up using someone else's card
> People expected one thing from your SaaS product
> They rarely check or read their email
Sure there were other points, but more than 50% of the list is about the customer having their own problems. It's like having a bad actor in the system making it worse for everyone.
In UPI (I know I know...) there is an autopay system. Your single UPI app has a single page with all your subscriptions. You can cancel or do whatever there and it's all handled in one place. My openai, streaming services, youtube premium, amazon prime, everything is on there. It gives me notifications before a charge is about to occur. No dark patterns.
This is the standard I expect.
Since credit cards don't provide a centralised thing like that, it's up to the SaaS provider to give the equivalent experience.
Cancelling should be _exactly_ as easy as signing up. If that means your MAU doesn't increase as fast, maybe you have a shit product. Case in point: amazon prime can have cancel buttons littered all across every page and I'm still not gonna cancel it.
Here's the simplest implementation: Few days before and on the day of charging, some infobox on the app's most attention-requiring screen, and an email telling me I'm gonna be charged. In all those communications, the main CTA should be a cancel button, that without further ado, let's me confirm and cancel the thing.
Anything even one step more complicated is a dark pattern.
Someone downthread mentioned - what if they want to change their subscription level instead of cancelling? In that case, two CTAs: change plan, and cancel. Both equally sized and right next to each other with good color contrast - important! None of that greyed out cancel button bullshit.
> some infobox on the app's most attention-requiring screen, and an email telling me I'm gonna be charged
Nope, I no longer log in (because your app was crap, or because I accomplished my goal). Fine I lost $10
If I log in every day or two chances are I want to keep it going. It has to be an out-of-band communication with the ability to cancel in a frictionless way, which means no account hijinks
What a world we would be if companies didn't want to bill customers that don't use their product. Imagine if companies automatically paused billing if you stopped using their product? Panacea.
Apple is a hugely greedy company, but it's one thing I like about subscribing to things in there -- I can cancel at any time with minimal effort.
Beeminder does exactly that!
Customers don't want to "reach out" if it means hunting deep in their account settings to find the cancel button, or calling a number which may or may not lead them through an endless phone tree to waste 5 minutes talking with someone on the retention team reading from a script.
People don't remember they signed up.
They can't remember how to log in from a different device to cancel.
It's easier to use their credit card app to dispute the charge.
The company name is different than the product name - even a slight difference may indicate a scam, like all of these highway toll scams using a slightly different domain name.
A worker or family member signed up using someone else's card, and that person has no idea what the charge is for.
People expected one thing from your SaaS product, and got something else that they are not willing to pay for.
The communications around the product, pricing, or requirements was lacking.