For me: Cancelling paid subscriptions should be as easy as subscribing. I hate the fact that they actively hide the unsubscribe option or that you sometimes should have to write an e-mail if you want to unsubscribe.

  • Gustephan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    This isn’t an illegal thing but more of a tip for the thing you hate. Most credit card companies will let you open and close virtual credit cards tied to your main account, but with a new card number etc. I make a new virtual card for every subscription I have. If I want to cancel the service and it takes more than 5m to do so through the company that provides that service, I just turn off the virtual credit card they will try and fail to charge for the next payment.

  • Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    12 days ago

    For subscriptions, I highly recommend using disposable cards like Privacy.com (no affiliation, just a customer). If I want to try out Prime, or Starz, or a “free until…” promotional offer, I just spin up a card. It’s connected to my bank account, locked to that single merchant, and they can’t charge more than whatever spending limit I put on that card. Honestly, I don’t always even sign in to a service to cancel, it’s much easier to just pause or delete a card, and then they can’t charge you anymore. It’s free for us because they collect a small portion of the transaction amount (like Visa, PayPal, etc)…

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      I used them for a couple of years. But I kept finding that when I went to re-sign up for new vendors they wouldn’t support the cards for some reason. Has this gotten better?

  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    13 days ago

    Shooting plainclothes cops that execute a no-knock warrant on your home.

    Seriously.

    All states–ALL states–have a castle doctrine that allows you to use lethal defense to protect yourself inside your home. A no-knock warrant being executed by cops out of uniform means that you have a reasonable belief that your home is being invaded, and that your life is at immediate risk. Now, admittedly, you probably aren’t going to survive that exchange of gunfire. But the state is going to have a really hard time charging you with shooting at/killing a cop if you do.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        Even better: you have a specific legal right to resist police attempting to illegally enter your home. :D IIRC, the law was passed after the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that under then state law you had no right to resist even blatantly illegal actions by police.

        • y0kai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          12 days ago

          In some parts of the US (at least, maybe nationally) the castle doctrine even extends to your car. It is thought of as an “extension” of your home/castle.

          Edit: spelling

    • bort@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      12 days ago

      I’m gonna assume by “all states” you mean “all states within the USA”.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 days ago

        I believe that most other countries call them provinces rather than states. But yes, if you live in a country that has a normal police force, and you don’t have to worry about out-of-uniform cops using no-knock warrants to kick your front door in, then this is definitely not going to apply to you.

    • Higgs boson@dubvee.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      There are a number of things that are legal here in the US, which would count as corruption in other places.

  • Kookie215@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    126
    ·
    14 days ago

    Corporations that don’t pay taxes being allowed to make millions in profit while their employees qualify for welfare because they pay them so little.

    • slazer2au@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      14 days ago

      What’s worse is those same organisations get corporate welfare (tax breaks) but fight tooth and nail to prevent their workers from getting it.

    • NotAnotherLemmyUser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      14 days ago

      They should just make it so that whatever they announce as their “earnings” to their stockholders should also be the amount that they are taxed for.

  • Camelbeard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    13 days ago

    I don’t know how this works in the US, but where I live after a year subscription (let’s say for your internet provider or something). They can only renew per month. So if the year subscription is over you can cancel any service every month and they can’t hit you with any fees.

    Back in the day if you’d forgot to cancel your plan you’d be stuck with them for another year. It sucked!

  • chaosCruiser@futurology.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    14 days ago

    Interest based loans. It’s completely legal to use debt to kick the poor deeper into the gutter so that they can never stand up again.

  • Today@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 days ago

    My car insurance goes up as my car loses value. Years ago you could choose to only insure it up to a certain amount. My kids drove an older car and i designated $10k in insurance for it. That cut the insurance price to about 60%. Texas no longer allows that.

    • roofuskit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      14 days ago

      Your car may lose value, but the cost to repair goes up. Hence the insurance increases. Also the likelihood of a total loss goes up as well.

      • ilmagico@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        The insurance will never pay more than the value of the car, so if the repair cost goes too high they’ll just declare it a total loss and pay the “fair market value” of the car. And yes, a total loss is more likely, but that doesn’t mean the insurance pays more, on the contrary, they use that to pay less.

    • CuriousRefugee@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      14 days ago

      Isn’t most of the insurance for liability? I can see a logic where older cars are less safe, and thus accidents are more likely and would cost more, hence the higher costs. But I’m just guessing.

      • Zak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        14 days ago

        Collision insurance, the kind that pays for damage to the policy holder’s car in the event of a crash caused by the policy holder or an authorized driver of their car often more than doubles the overall cost of insurance. Collision insurance is usually optional when there’s not a loan.

    • No1@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 days ago

      Sometimes I get so pissed they don’t have the main item I came for, that I go put everything back on the shelves, exactly where they came from.

  • Libra00@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    14 days ago

    EULAs that say ‘using this <whatever> indicates your acceptance of these terms’. Seems like it ought to be illegal but it’s super common.

    • 60d@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      Paying for anything and then being stopped from owning it should be illegal.

      What the fuck am I buying software for if not to own it and have my privacy protected while using it?

      Fuck EULA’s and the companies trying to push the boundaries of acceptable behaviour 😤 just for a couple extra bucks selling our data to the highest bidder.

      • Libra00@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        I just assume it’s legal because it’s so common, you’d think if it was illegal someone would’ve challenged it by now and nobody could put it in their EULAs anymore.

      • Wiz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        13 days ago

        It kinda does make it legal. If you don’t agree to the terms of the product, then you are using it illegally. It sucks, but that’s where the law is. I am typing this on a Linux laptop in Firefox, but those have terms and conditions, too!

        • stoy@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          13 days ago

          That depends on the location/jurisdiction, but I do have a hard time believing that any court would uphold a EULA stating that you have to cook dinner for any Microsoft employee that happens to request it, just because to installed Windows 11.

          • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            13 days ago

            I believe a fair number of juristictions also invalidate any EULA that’s only viewable after you’ve purchased a product so most software EULAs are worth less than toilet paper anyway.

            • Wiz@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              13 days ago

              EULA’s are widely honored and established law. However, anyone can push back on anything they put in an agreement.

              To fight Microsoft, you have to fight Microsoft’s lawyers, in Microsoft’s jurisdiction. But you can’t sue them, because you already agreed to arbitration. And you’d have to pay lawyers in what would be a long, drawn out process.

              If Microsoft demands things that are incredibly weird like what you describe above, there definitely would be a chance it could be appealed to a court and eventually see a judge. I think it would be a long and expensive process for both sides getting there. And Microsoft’s argument would be, “The user has the option to stop using it.”

              There are undoubtedly severance clauses in there, so if a court deems a part of a license illegal, then it is stricken, and the rest of the agreement stands.

              So, Microsoft’s lawyers only put things in the agreement that they are 99+% sure of wanting and winning. So they probably won’t request your spleen. They don’t want that. They just want your money, your data, and your eyeballs connected to your brain.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days ago

        You know, I’m not actually sure how binding it is exactly, aside from not totally. It must do something or they wouldn’t bother getting pretend consent.

    • Kookie215@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 days ago

      Damn, where you live at where this is legal because shit is about to get ROUGH where I’m at and I’m trying to get free groceries.

      • palordrolap@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 days ago

        They write in Finnish in other comments, but I don’t seem to be able to confirm or deny the law there, at least not with a quick search.

        I did find an article that suggested that it’s been ruled legal in Italy, but only if you’re homeless and hungry. I can imagine that if you tried it and had any assets whatsoever, they’d find a way to put a lien on those assets rather than let you get away with it.

    • Ledericas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      depends, many placed closed down as of recently due to the massive lifting problem. this is less of a problem in wealthier areas.

  • hedgehogging_the_bed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    14 days ago

    Biden administration was working on making that unsubscribe bullshit illegal last year. But then Trump so those tactics will probably be mandatory pretty soon…