0
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 0001
0 points (NaN% liked)
0 readers
0 users here now
founded a long while ago
For the United States, that is correct. It is up to each business to dictate how this works.
Yes it was. Patreon's Terms of Use
There are two things being discussed here. The service and the payment. The first statement indicates that a change between you and Patreon on terms will affect the payment on the next cycle, so if you were billed monthly on the next month. But a change between you two will affect the service immediately.
There is a distinct possibility that they actually cannot do this because they've never asked their programming team to write such a thing in their payment processing. Can their programming team write such a thing? Oh absolutely. But if they've not actually written such a thing, then they cannot technically do it because it just simply does not exist. I written software for some time now, and this kind of technical, has actually happened to me where the dev team asked if such should be programmed and higher up indicated specifically that such SHOULD NOT be written for pretty much the reason that it thus prevents such from ever being a possibility to be offered to customers. So just FYI, their software might not be able to do this by purposeful omission of such. It would not be the first company to have done this.
I think this kind of practice is shit. And the "free but if you don't cancel becomes a monthly subscription" kind of stuff the FTC is looking to add to their list of dark business patterns. I won't bore you with details but the FTC is pretty hit and miss with their regulations and Congress is constantly in a back and forth of giving it super charged powers and making it toothless. So companies that can, usually litigate the FTC until a new President or Congressional composition comes into play that will pull back the FTC.
You know what's really crazy is in other industries, things like pro-rated and payment terms must match service terms, all of that is required under law. I'm in an industry now that has such regulations and boy if the law didn't require it, they sure as shit wouldn't do it. There's nothing stopping these same tried and tested laws from applying to online services, outside of lobbyist "asking" Congress and State Assemblies to not do such. So I agree with you there, this kind of pattern in online services is shit. But they are absolutely legally allowed to do this kind of bullshit.
Frankly, whether the code is written or not is irrelevant to whether or not Patreon could do it on a technical level. Not having the code written =/= it can't be done, and saying it like this is just pointless pedantry. You knew what they meant.