undefined | Better HN

0 pointsonion2k4y ago0 comments

That's not how cancellations for subscriptions or refunds for services work though. If Bob has paid Alice to send cards, and she has sent them, then obviously no refund is necessary. Alice just needs to ban Bob from using the service again.

In the case of Tinder banning someone, they should automatically cancel the subscription because the customer no longer have access to what they're paying for, and if there's a part of a month left they should refund the value of that. Companies should not be allowed to issue 'punishment' to customers. That's what the criminal justice system is for.

This is not a hard problem. Companies should only charge for the service they provide, and if they choose to withdraw that service they shouldn't take any money for what the user can't use.

0 comments

ahtihn4y ago

> Companies should not be allowed to issue 'punishment' to customers.

Why not? Contracts with penalties are very common.

Subscriptions should be cancelled when an account is banned but it's not obvious to me why there should be a refund. Subscription services usually don't allow for partial refunds when you cancel. If you force companies to refund in case of a ban, you need to force them to allow cancellation at any time with the same refund.

TomSwirly4y ago

So let me get this straight.

You think a contract where one party can unilaterally cancel, present no evidence to anyone, and keep the money paid is somehow fair and just?

unyttigfjelltol4y ago

It goes both ways-- do we think a contract with a fixed guaranteed term can be canceled with refund simply because the consumer decided to violate the terms of service?

This is what courts are for, and the fact they aren't involved here is the basic problem.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse