1070 points by danso 2794 days ago | 536 comments on HN
| Mild positive Editorial · v3.7· 2026-02-28 08:22:36
Summary Consumer Rights & Economic Transparency Advocates
This Nieman Lab article covers California's Senate Bill 313, which mandates transparent subscription pricing and online cancellation rights. The piece frames the law as consumer-protective remedy to deceptive auto-renewal practices, includes testimony from consumers and publishers, and emphasizes its broad applicability across all companies with California customers.
I recently had to cancel an ongoing subscription I had with Equifax, which requires you to call by phone. Unbelievably frustrating. I had to dial the service at least 10 times. Each time, the automated responder would make me go through a very slow menu selection process, only to randomly fail to acknowledge either my correct SSN or zipcode or street number, which I entered using a keypad. As a consumer, I've had to enter info via phone keypad for as long as I can remember, and I've never run into a system (not even small local businesses) that was so randomly buggy.
I thought maybe I had the wrong phone number for cancellation. Turns out, when you google "cancel Equifax phone number", there are several phone numbers listed by Equifax itself, on various sections of its "help" pages.
Took me about half an hour to finally reach a human operator. Surprisingly, the cancellation process was quick with her with no haggling. But I imagine the process is so frustrating overall that a good number of people just give up.
While I like the spirit of this law (rare for me with CA laws), I expect it to be ruled unconstitutional as attempting to regulate interstate commerce, whose so jurisdiction is under US Congress.
For places that require a phone call I came up with a trick to cancel via email. If they reply back via email and say I have to call them, I tell them I'm deaf and can't talk on the phone.
I canceled my LA Times subscription online last week. The website says you have to call to cancel. I thought I'd just give it a try online, fully expecting to fail, but to my surprise it all went through easily. They asked for the reason, and when I gave it (excessive ads+tracking) they canceled.
There have been a few times where I didn't sign up for a service because I anticipated cancelling would be a pain. The fact that trials often autorenew makes me reluctant to even do a trial. I wonder how much business is lost this way vs. how much is gained from making cancelling hard.
This was already required in the Visa Merchant agreement. If you signed up online. The merchant must provide an online way to cancel which could be email, webpage or chat. If they don't just call up your card issuer and file a "canceled recurring" dispute as the merchant doesn't provide a visa acceptable way to cancel the subscription.
Last week I spent 1 hour and 20 minutes waiting for a Zipcar rep to answer my call. Creating my account was as simple as taking a photo of my license within the app and getting into a car. Companies that make signing up easy and cancellation difficult are the worst.
One of the philosophies at Netflix was that it should be as easy to cancel as it is to sign up, because you should respect your customers enough not to annoy them into keeping your service.
Honestly, it always seemed to me that it was actually easier to cancel than the sign up.
I've only used this a couple of times but I think it works:
"I'd like to cancel my service. I'm going to say this really clearly for the recording, in case I have to subpoena this for evidence. I want to cancel my service, effective [date]. When I hang up this phone, I want there to be no financial relationship between myself and your company of any kind. None. I don't want any further communication from you other than a final statement showing a zero balance due. Now we can make this call as long as you'd like. No. Financial. Relationship. We're done." Then go silent, and if they try to pitch you any products of any kind, interrupt and ask "Are you refusing to cancel my service? Speak clearly for the recording."
There's this company that offers internet service on flights also claims to offer secure hotspots, (it's a gimmick) around cities all over the US they're based in Los Angeles: Boingo Wireless. The only way to cancel the service is to call in, that's their whole scheme. When you call in they treat that as if you were doing something extremely complicated and that takes time. One of the customer service representative told me that he would have to contact the engineering department to cancel my account...Like that would be necessary. I was getting impatient, on the phone for about 40 minutes. This new law will be the end of them.
Honestly, the best way to handle these things is to forget even bothering with the company and file a charge-back with your bank or Visa/Mastercard. You have every right to call up your bank and deny a charge for a service you're not using, and didn't ask to renew.
Plus it's guaranteed to get the charge removed immediately, and you'll be hurting the company by adding to their charge-back tally, increasing payment processing costs for them and potentially completely cutting them off.
Why not just use Privacy [1] when you sign up? It allows you to generate virtual cards on a per-merchant basis anytime you want. You can simply shutoff the card(s) when you want to cancel. No phone calls, emails, or faking deafness required. I’ve been a big fan of it ever since I discovered them.
I made the mistake of joining a Goodlife gym in Canada many moons ago...
The place was disgusting. Always crowded. Mould growing in the bathrooms. Stunk very badly, etc...
So I stopped going regularly... and one day I was in the area I decided to stop in and cancel my membership.
"Oh sorry, you'll need to make an appointment with management in order to cancel."
"OK, is a manager in right now?"
"Yes, the manager is in but I was told not to disturb her right now."
"OK, well can you tell her a customer is waiting paitiently to cancel his account?"
"No, sorry, I am not allowed to disturb her. You're going to need to make an appointment and come back."
So I did that...
And about 3 weeks later I went in at the agreed upon time to cancel my subscription and I was just sitting... waiting... for over 1 hour...
Right beside a poor old lady that was trying to cancel her subscription as well!!!
She was overly polite and was dealing with this overagressive meathead trying to keep her locked into the service...
"I hate coming here... I never come... I never should have signed up... I just want to cancel..."
"But do you have any friends that might want to take on your subscription? It's at a discounted rate and you might be able to help them out by transferring it over to them."
"No, I do know know anyone who wants to come here."
"Ok, let me go talk to my manager about this."
And he left for like 20 minutes and came back and gave her the gears again.
When my turn came... I just said "I'm moving to england and I don't know a single person here who might want to absorb my contract".
It was a total lie... but it was the only answer that would get me out of there in under 10 minutes.
Companies abusing politeness really are terrible to society.
The EU's new data privacy law (GDPR) allows you to withdraw consent, and "it must be as easy to withdraw consent as to give it". A perfectly clear and powerful way to describe what is wanted.
"It must be as easy to cancel a subscription as to subscribe" would a similar, effective way to do it here.
Recurring payments are implemented in the worst way possible. You cannot see a list of your subscriptions online, cannot see how much you have spent, cannot stop or cancel them. And even if you don't use some service anymore, they still can charge you. That is because systems like Visa earn money only when you spend and have no motivation to make cancelling easier.
I pay for recurring stuff with a CC for this very reason. I had an insurance company refuse to cancel my insurance unless I physically came into their office all the way across town (would have been about two hours of my time when it was all said and done) to show them proof that I had insurance through another agency. I declined that request and explained that they simply weren't getting paid any more. I called the number on my card and explained the situation to them and that I told them to stop billing me and they refused. The rep noted this issue on the account. Sure enough, they didn't stop billing me. I called the card company again to report that the insurance company had billed me again. They immediately reversed the charges and blocked all further charges from the company.
The insurance agent reported me to DMV (the relationship had soured pretty badly before this all happened) for not having insurance. It was a 2 minute call to my new insurance agent to let them to know to send proof of coverage to DMV. Problem solved in ~10 minutes of my time instead of 2 hours.
Yes! This what excited me when 8 first heard about it and I was perplexed why people focused on reservations. That's just the door, and companies on the other end are interested in lowering the barrier for customers.
I'm curious what this does for in person issues, and if gyms will take a hit in CA.
Not sure it would hold up in the Supreme Court. Provided the law is worded strictly to apply to CA citizens / only when corporations are serving CA citizens there is little to make an interstate regulation argument on. And there is also international precedence (EU GDPR) which could guide court opinion.
Maybe it's just wishful thinking but that's my $0.02.
As with someone else's report about the LA Times: they say they don't, but you don't have to care what they say.
I did it this way. I went to their live help chat. The moment I said "cancel", I was redirected to another representative, who was clearly trained in customer retention. I held my ground (which is so much easier for me in chat than on a phone call!) and cancelled.
Half a year back I got a check from American Express for $50-ish because of some accounting issue they had. Bank error in your favor. Unfortunately, the local meth heads stole it out of my mailbox and I only got the check stub when someone found it in the street and turned it in to the post office. So I called them up to ask them to reissue the check. Long story short, they dodged and weaved with their phone automation and outsourced call center until I finally gave up and wrote them a letter. Six weeks passed and right when I'd written it off, I got a check.
I actually have a speech impairment (a stutter) and you’d think people would be willing to accommodate. I can speak just fine when I have complete agency over the words I choose to say, but it’s the absolute worst when I have to read out some long specific access code or account number and say it 100% correct. Stutter even once and they think I meant 2 P’s when I just wanted to say a single P. And then it becomes this long drawn out process of “after AF6, it’s just a single P, but the rest of it is right” because I really don’t want to have to read out the entire code again.
But sadly there have been more times than I can count where I told them I have a speech impairment, it’s difficult for me to say certain things in the way they need me to right now, and I’d prefer to send them an email (even offer to send them an email for them to open while we are still talking)... And they said no they cannot do that for one reason or another.
I did something similar when I moved to get rid of my wired phone service. I told AT&T I had signed a contract with Comcast and told Comcast I had signed a contract with AT&T.
Google has since changed this. Google Duplex will not "fool" humans any more. They announce that they're the "Google Assistant" calling on behalf of a customer.
I think unfortunately what will happen is that people will just hang up on the google assistant because it's not a real human.
It'll be kind of like what happened to the "glassholes". Maybe not as mean though.
I started doing this after I came back from living in Korea a couple of times. The only one who ever tried was, I think, Sprint or another carrier, who offered to put a hold on my account but they could only do that for some short number of months, so of course my next reply was "I'm not planning on coming back."
I had this issue with a water delivery service when I lived on the East Coast US. In the end I sent an email saying that I was moving back to Italy, stopping any further charges from them on my CC, blocking them by email, and they could do whatever the hell they wanted with my account.
I've done this several times with Comcast, but it failed with Time Warner when I moved out of NYC. They demand to know why you are canceling and have some sort of way to extract money out of you for every scenario, including moving out of their service area. In that case, they transfer you to another phone system that helps you find a provider at your new address and, presumably, nets them a referral fee of some kind. Meanwhile, if you try any excuse to quit that they haven't accounted for, they tell you "yes sir" and redirect your call to that service as a fallback catch-all. Truly despicable.
"Well, I don't mean to overshare, but if you must know, I've been convicted of aggravated manslaughter and am scheduled for booking tomorrow afternoon. I won't be needing cable TV service for ten to fifteen years."
And good services also make it possible to put a subscription on hold for 6-12mo or even indefinitely. I did that with Hulu for a while before upgrading to their no-ad service. If they didn't have hold, I would have cancelled and probably not signed up again.
I've found a different method. Email them and tell them they need to call me or they won't be paid anymore. I've actually used the phrase "give me a holler". Got a call the next morning.
Any company that generates value for a customer doesn't have retention issues. I used to run software engineering at two subscription commerce companies. One company allowed users to cancel and pause/skip online via webpage, chat, email and even social channels. The other forced customers to call up support to cancel. The first company sold for 10 figures, the other company just did a down round and layoffs. Screwing over customers is good for short-term gain, but eventually, you run out of new customers and you burned the bridge for re-aquiring former customers.
It's too easy to cancel Netflix. Someone called in and gave my first initial + last name @ gmail email address and cancelled for me without any further verification.
It is not guaranteed. The company has a chance to respond with the paperwork proving that you in fact received the item you paid for. It's then up to you to prove that you did not.
I am not a lawyer, but this is what happened to me.
Agreed! One thing that impressed me recently is how easy it is to cancel Symantec's (rather useless) LifeLock service. Just write a sentence on their online support page and my service was cancelled in less than 24 hours. They even sent me an email suggesting things I can do to prevent identity theft without using their service.
I know Symantec is unpopular here on HN, because of the certificate authority fiasco and a (quite reasonable) distrust of antivirus software, but really kudos to them for handling the cancellation so well.
Editorial Channel
What the content says
+0.30
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Medium Framing
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
+0.17
Advocates that all consumers deserve equal ability to cancel subscriptions; frames equal treatment as principle.
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Article states law requires equal cancellation ability: 'allow the consumer to cancel, the automatic renewal.'
Content emphasizes consumers have equal right to remedy regardless of company size or resources.
Inferences
Universal application of cancellation requirement reflects principle that all persons deserve equal dignity in commercial dealings.
+0.30
Article 7Equality Before Law
Medium Framing
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
+0.17
Law applies uniformly to all companies; content emphasizes equal legal treatment across businesses regardless of size.
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Article states law applies 'to any company (or publisher) with paying customers in the state — so, pretty much everybody, GDPR-style.'
Content emphasizes uniform requirement: 'a consumer who accepts an automatic renewal...shall be allowed to terminate...exclusively online.'
Inferences
Universal legal applicability demonstrates commitment to equality before law across all business entities.
+0.30
Article 17Property
Medium Framing
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
+0.17
Law protects property rights by preventing unauthorized charges; content frames pricing clarity as protection of consumer assets.
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Article states law prohibits 'charging a consumer's credit or debit card...for an automatic renewal...without first obtaining the consumer's consent.'
Content frames unauthorized subscriptions as violation of consumer property rights in personal finances.
Inferences
Legal protections against unauthorized billing affirm property rights in personal finances.
+0.30
Article 22Social Security
Medium Framing
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
+0.17
Law requires pricing disclosure and protects consumer economic interests; content advocates protections against deceptive economic practices.
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Article requires disclosure of 'the price that will be charged after the trial ends or the manner in which the subscription...pricing will change.'
Content advocates consumer economic rights: 'allow the consumer to cancel...before the consumer pays for the goods or services.'
Inferences
Transparency and consent requirements affirm consumer economic rights and protections against exploitation.
+0.20
PreamblePreamble
Medium Framing
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
0.00
Content frames consumer protection as matter of dignity and fairness in transactions, reflecting preamble's recognition of inherent rights and dignity.
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Article discusses California law SB 313 protecting consumer autonomy in subscription cancellation.
Content frames consumer protection against deceptive practices as fairness issue.
Inferences
Sympathetic framing of consumer grievances reflects recognition of fundamental dignity in personal transactions.
+0.20
Article 8Right to Remedy
Medium Coverage Advocacy
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
0.00
Content presents law as effective remedy: consumers can cancel online rather than 'call a hard-to-find telephone number.'
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Law provides remedy: 'allow the consumer to cancel the automatic renewal or continuous service exclusively online.'
Article emphasizes practical relief from prior barriers: no longer 'forcing you to...call a hard-to-find telephone number.'
Inferences
Accessible cancellation mechanism represents practical remedy against unfair contract practices.
+0.20
Article 12Privacy
Medium Framing
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
-0.17
Content advocates transparency in pricing and consent for charges; protects consumer financial privacy from unauthorized billing.
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Article requires 'clear and conspicuous explanation of the price that will be charged after the trial ends.'
Content protects against unauthorized charges: law prohibits 'charging a consumer's credit or debit card...without first obtaining the consumer's consent.'
Inferences
Pricing transparency requirement protects consumer privacy and autonomy in personal financial decisions.
+0.20
Article 21Political Participation
Medium Coverage Framing
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
0.00
Content presents legislative action as democratic remedy to consumer problems; credits State Senator as author of protection.
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Article frames law as solution: 'California law that went into effect July 1 aims to stop companies from blockading customers.'
Content credits 'State Sen. Bob Hertzberg, the bill's sponsor, for the new rules,' showing legislative accountability.
Inferences
Framing of law as remedy emphasizes legitimate role of democratic process in protecting rights.
+0.20
Article 28Social & International Order
Medium Framing
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
0.00
Law creates framework for fair commercial transactions; content discusses how legislation establishes social order protecting consumer rights.
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Law establishes fair transaction framework: consumers can cancel, prices disclosed, consent required.
Article presents law as creating protective order: 'a consumer...shall be allowed to terminate...exclusively online.'
Inferences
Legal framework demonstrates commitment to social order where economic rights are protected and fair transactions are ensured.
+0.20
Article 29Duties to Community
Medium Framing
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
0.00
Law imposes duties on businesses (disclose pricing, allow cancellation, obtain consent); content frames businesses as having responsibilities to consumers.
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Law establishes business duties: 'require a business from charging...without first obtaining the consumer's consent.'
Content frames businesses as accountable: law requires 'allow the consumer to cancel...the automatic renewal or continuous service.'
Inferences
Law establishes mutual duties between businesses and consumers, reflecting community obligations in economic transactions.
+0.10
Article 19Freedom of Expression
Medium Framing
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
-0.14
Article itself freely published and circulated; reports on commercial regulation without editorial censorship; frames consumer choice/voice.
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Article is published and freely accessible online without restriction.
Content includes direct quotes from multiple stakeholders (consumers, publishers, legislators), showing unrestricted expression.
Inferences
Publication demonstrates freedom to report on commercial regulations without censorship or editorial restriction.
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
No discussion of discrimination or differentiated treatment based on protected characteristics.
ND
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Content does not address life, liberty, or security in relevant context.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
Content does not address slavery or servitude.
ND
Article 5No Torture
Content does not address torture or cruel treatment.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
Content does not address personhood or legal recognition.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
Content does not address arbitrary arrest or detention.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
Content does not address fair hearing or impartial tribunal.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
Content does not address criminal presumption of innocence.
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
Content does not address freedom of movement.
ND
Article 14Asylum
Content does not address asylum or refuge.
ND
Article 15Nationality
Content does not address nationality or change of nationality.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
Content does not address marriage or family rights.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
Content does not address freedom of thought, conscience, or religion.
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
Content does not address freedom of peaceful assembly or association.
ND
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
Content does not address work, employment, or labor rights.
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
Content does not address rest or leisure.
ND
Article 25Standard of Living
Content does not address health, food, housing, or medical care.
ND
Article 26Education
Content does not directly address education rights.
ND
Article 27Cultural Participation
Content does not address cultural rights or intellectual property.
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Content does not address destruction or limitation of rights.
Structural Channel
What the site does
+0.30
Article 12Privacy
Medium Framing
Structural
+0.30
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
-0.17
Site operates with privacy standards; transparent about data and practices.
+0.20
PreamblePreamble
Medium Framing
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
0.00
Site embodies transparency and accountability principles consistent with preamble's values.
+0.20
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Medium Framing
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.17
Site operates under standards ensuring equal treatment of all readers.
+0.20
Article 7Equality Before Law
Medium Framing
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.17
Site operates under institutional standards that apply equally to all users.
+0.20
Article 8Right to Remedy
Medium Coverage Advocacy
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
0.00
Site provides accessible information facilitating consumer remedy against unfair practices.
+0.20
Article 17Property
Medium Framing
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.17
Site operates with integrity in handling user data and interests.
+0.20
Article 19Freedom of Expression
Medium Framing
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
-0.14
Site provides open access to content; no apparent restrictions on publication or reader access.
+0.20
Article 21Political Participation
Medium Coverage Framing
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
0.00
Site is product of democratic institution (Harvard); supports transparency in policy process.
+0.20
Article 22Social Security
Medium Framing
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.17
Site operates with economic transparency; free access supports information rights.
+0.20
Article 28Social & International Order
Medium Framing
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
0.00
Site operates within just institutional order; supports transparency in social/economic systems.
+0.20
Article 29Duties to Community
Medium Framing
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
0.00
Site operates with ethical responsibilities to readers; transparent about institutional duties.
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
Not evaluated at domain level; no evidence of discriminatory practices in site structure.
ND
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Not applicable.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
Not applicable.
ND
Article 5No Torture
Not applicable.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
Not applicable.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
Not applicable.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
Not applicable.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
Not applicable.
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
Not applicable.
ND
Article 14Asylum
Not applicable.
ND
Article 15Nationality
Not applicable.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
Not applicable.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
Not applicable.
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
Not applicable.
ND
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
Not applicable.
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
Not applicable.
ND
Article 25Standard of Living
Not applicable.
ND
Article 26Education
Site provides educational content about journalism policy; supports information access.
ND
Article 27Cultural Participation
Not applicable.
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Not applicable.
Supplementary Signals
How this content communicates, beyond directional lean. Learn more
build 08564a6+21y2 · deployed 2026-02-28 15:24 UTC · evaluated 2026-02-28 15:14:40 UTC
Support HN HRCB
Each evaluation uses real API credits. HN HRCB runs on donations — no ads, no paywalls.
If you find it useful, please consider helping keep it running.