Free Technology Newsletters
» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters
Technology & Business Daily
 
InfoWorld
 
   

Reader Voices: Autorenewal Defenses

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:18:09 AM PDT

How can we protect ourselves from online services that employ hidden autorenewal clauses to keep charging us? Readers responded to my recent story about how credit card companies like American Express handle disputed autorenewal charges with some ideas on what we can do about it.


"I thought about this a while back while working with a client who didn't want to buy on the Internet because of credit card security concerns," wrote one reader. "The workaround was to buy a gift card, for the appropriate amount, with cash, so there wasn't a credit card number attached to allow auto-renewal. Just use the gift card once, then cut it up and throw it away. Be sure to figure the cost of the gift card into the price of the product, though. The client in question was an AAA member, though, and they apparently have a program where they waive the card charge and just issue the card for the amount of value received for members. I also thought this was a nifty idea for safeguarding credit cards while on vacation, too. At most, the thief gets the vacation spending money, and no connection to me that could be used to commit identity theft."

Another reader had a suggestion that can also save money on the price you pay. "For years I purchase software only in shrink-wrapped packages or downloaded from Newegg.com. In fact buying from Newegg turned out to be cheaper than the autorenew offers that appear one year after installation. I then uninstall the 'old' version and reinstall the 'new' one. This keeps me current and avoids autorenewals. From what I've read it is less hassle than fighting with a software firm and credit card company over an unwanted autorenewal."

Many readers advocated using the one-time credit cards available from various financial institutions. "I personally use one-time credit card numbers when making purchasing on-line, including autorenewal items," wrote another reader. "To date at least, whenever these companies have tried to automatically renew by charging to those numbers, the charges have been declined. Bank of America calls their one-time numbers as 'ShopSafe account numbers,' Discover Card refers to them as 'Secure Online Account Numbers,' and Citibank goes by the name of 'Virtual Account Numbers.' There may other such services, but those are the only ones that I am aware of. Years ago, American Express did offer one-time credit card numbers, but they discontinued the service. The explanation I got was that not enough people were using them."

But such virtual or one-time credit card numbers don't always work as you might expect. "The one time number doesn't help, at least for Discover," a reader wrote. "The number can be used by that specific vendor, but they can use it as many times as they want, as I discovered when a subscription was automatically renewed with my year old one time number. I haven't checked the other credit card vendors' policies."

"Not all virtual account numbers are created equal," agreed another reader. "As has been previously noted, with Discover you must call to get a virtual account cancelled. Citi and Bank of America (MBNA) offer the option of creating a number with specific time and dollar limits. This worked advantageously for me, ironically, with a subscription to Consumer Reports online service. I didn't find it to be worth the money and failed to notice the evergreen clause in the subscription. A year later I got a snail mail notice saying that there was a problem with my renewal. No problem for me; I didn't want it and didn't get charged for it."

Other readers think a little more drastic action is called for. "The cure is simple but inconvenient. Do not purchase products with autorenewal clauses and do not do business with credit card companies you feel won't stand by you in a dispute. These practices will stop when they are no longer profitable. Nobody likes to read the fine print but before authorizing anyone to charge your credit card, it's not that difficult to copy the fine print into your word processor and search for terms like "auto" or "renewal" ... you can even do this from within your browser."

Should we really all have to read every sneakwrap license agreement for autorenewal clauses? Maybe not. "One change I'd like to see involves more diligent disclosure," wrote another reader. "For me, it's not enough to move autorenewal from the EULA to a separate, clearly worded agreement because a year old agreement is usually forgotten. I want notification from the vendor shortly BEFORE autorenewal is executed --including a chance to opt out. And ideally, I'd also like clear and explicit notification from the credit card company each time autorenewal is processed. I believe these notifications would actually save everyone money because vendors and lendors could spend less on "customer service" trying to make the charges stick. Of course, I don't expect v/lendors to embrace this idea without a law requiring it, but I really think they would benefit as much as the consumer."

How do you defend against hidden autorenewal clauses? Post your comments below or write me at Foster@gripe2ed.com.

< FTC says yes, you still Can Spam | Spyware bill cloaks a mini-UCITA >


Display: Sort:
Reader Voices: Autorenewal Defenses | 25 comments (25 topical) | Post A Comment
Some Vendors Don't Allow One Time Cards[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:27:52 AM PDT

It seems that I read somewhere in the last year or so that some vendors are not allowing the one time cards because they can't auto-renew. It also seems that I saw some EULA verbiage that basically gave the vendors the green light to charge a $20 penalty, much like a returned check fee, if you tried to use a one time card. Corporate greed at its finest. :)

Allen D. Tate

[ Reply to This ]



Just because they can't get it [ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:03:24 AM PDT

Just because they can't charge you does not mean you don't owe it.

If you sign up for a subscription service that features auto-renewal and you use a one-time credit card that expires before the auto-renw, you still agreed to the charge. If a vendor wanted they could turn you over to a collection agency for non-payment.

So while using the single use card saves you the hassle of fighting to get your money back, you could still be on the hook for payment.

[ Reply to This ]


And your[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:36:34 PM PDT

legal basis for this is?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


The legal Basis Is[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:34:30 PM PDT

The fact you signed the contract and/or agreed to the EULA with the auto renewal clause. I suppose you could go to court and argue the EULA was invalid for any of the many reasons debated here and elsewhere but you're taking your chances on the judge agreeing with you

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


So do this...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous User on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 06:34:56 AM PDT

Simple solution. Agree to the auto-renewal if it's required to process the subscription. Then send the company a notarized letter with the delivery receipt option stating that you specifically opt-out of the auto-renewal. Use a one-time card or not. If they try to auto-renew you anyway (and possibly send you to collections when they can't auto-charge the one-time card) sue them (and possibly the collection agency, if they won't back down when you send them a copy of that notarized letter and delivery receipt) in small claims court.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Better solution[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by Reziac on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:29:38 AM PDT

Find a different vendor with straightforward policies. Vote with your wallet; don't support these behaviours by buying the affected products AT ALL.

I know it's not always possible, but there are alternatives for many of these products.

Oh, and inform the company WHY you're not buying their product.

.
~REZ~
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Con to One-TIme Cards[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by Paul Hoerner on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 05:09:41 PM PDT

I work in the hotel industry and a problem I've encountered with one-time cards is that the customer will ask when booking the exact cost of the room (room & tax) then use a one-time card to guarantee the room (vs a 6p.m hold which does not need a credit card to book but the customer needs to check in by 6 p.m. or possibly lose the room). The problem is that when hotels run a credit card authorization they authorize an additional amount (usually $20.00) to cover incedentals like phone calls or movie rentals. The one-time cards have their authorizations declines and the guest risks having their reservation cancelled.

[ Reply to This ]


Simple fix[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:32:55 PM PDT

There's a simple solution for this: charge the room, then charge the extra $20. If the latter charge is declined, let the guest's reservation stand, but flag it to indicate that they won't be able to charge stuff to their room, but will instead have to pay separately for the stuff.

Consider also making basic TV and local phone calls free -- like they would be for a local resident, and presumably are for you. Advertise this fact, and you'll attract more customers who would prefer not to get nickle-and-dimed for stuff they get basically for free at home. Most of their calls will probably be long distance anyway, and they can (and will) still pay for movie rentals or specialty channels.

P.S. your computer just lied to and about me. It accused me of not answering your "security question", when in fact I had. I do not take kindly to being lied to, nor being the subject of false accusations. Do not (directly or by mechanical proxy) do so again.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Wow![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:21:45 PM PDT

Yes, Your Majesty.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Grow up [ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:46:18 PM PDT

...already you loser. You whine and cry like a spoiled baby about this all the time...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


CC[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by Paul Hoerner on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:59:13 PM PDT

TV use and local phone service is free, it's movies & long distance calls that are charged. Also we can't authorize just the cost of the room because every hotel chains software automatically adds on the extra authorization charges. I don't like it either and it's plays hob with debit cards.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Duh...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:42:04 AM PDT

If your software automatically adds the extra charges, and that is causing problems, then edit and recompile the software...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


A*hole[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:17:12 PM PDT

Ed, please do us all a favor and permanently ban this "induhvidual's" IP address. (I'm assuming these posts are all from the same demented idiot.)


[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Meta[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:44:20 AM PDT

I see several pointless and insulting posts here in response to what seemed like a sensible suggestion regarding the hotel owner's problems with one-time cards.

These are clearly uncalled-for. If anyone should be banned or any posts deleted it is those replies.

On the original topic, it should be noted that nobody was originally suggesting using one-time credit cards at hotels, but rather for various questionable internet offerings, software and etc. that sometimes do sneaky autorenewals without asking.


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



No[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:38:38 AM PDT

No, the "insulting" posts calling for banning are directed to the poster who stated:

"P.S. your computer just lied to and about me. It accused me of not answering your "security question", when in fact I had. I do not take kindly to being lied to, nor being the subject of false accusations. Do not (directly or by mechanical proxy) do so again."

This person(s) has/have made several posts whining about the operation of the site.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Eh[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:41:51 AM PDT

Then perhaps the operation of the site is less than perfect?

That also is not reason nor justification for abuse. Particularly not if, as is stated, the user was more or less accused of being a spammer -- I know that I would find that very insulting myself.

Regardless, this is the Gripe Log of Infoworld. If you don't like to read people griping about IT software and IT hardware and IT people doing various things wrong, then you're probably reading the wrong blog.


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



What?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:52:27 AM PDT

"This person(s) has/have made several posts whining about the operation of the site."

How would you know? The last time I checked, "Anonymous User" is not a single user's user name, but is instead listed for any of the potentially-thousands and surely-at-least-dozens of users who leave comments without registering.

Also, if the site has some technical issues, and one user has commented on such, it stands to reason that more than one user may have done so.

Therefore, I would find it quite surprising if it turned out that they were all posted by a single person. Regardless, it's unlikely any of us will ever know.

On the original topic, my own autorenewal defense is not to buy or subscribe to anything that has autorenewal language in its terms. There are alternatives.


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Just cancel your credit card regularly[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:03:23 PM PDT

on a regular basis, I call the 800 behind my card and tell them I would like a new card (I can lie and tell them I've lost it, but it's not even needed). They cancel the current one, and send me a new one, with a new number, usually in 2-3 days.

The old number become immediately invalid, so there's no way it can be charged again. They do that for thief protection... it's free and it works well.

This is with Visa Chase Card (credit card, not debit).

Of course the only issue is that until I receive the new card and activate it, I don't have a credit card. This works for me because I have *two* accounts - I just use the other for a few days (before canceling/renewing it also)

[ Reply to This ]


Yes, but...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:40:16 AM PDT

...do they charge you money for the privilege?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Cancel CC[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:43:24 AM PDT

Doing this may have a negative effect on your credit score. Length of time an account has been open is a factor in calculating the score. Getting a new account number will show up on your credit report as closing one account and opening a new account.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Eh?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 06:33:15 AM PDT

This should not be. The credit score is supposed to assess credit-worthiness. The only important thing, then, is whether you pay your debts in a timely fashion. Closing an account or opening one shouldn't matter, as long as there are no outstanding balances. I expect you can only close an account by paying any outstanding balance anyway.

The only possible reason for the credit score to factor in things like that, then, is specifically to penalize people who try to avoid misuse of their credit card numbers by vendors that have retained them.

In other words, the only possible reason for factoring in things like that is to promote the misuse of retained credit card numbers.


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Sorry, but it doesn't work that way[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:49:07 PM PDT

Regardless of how you think credit scores should work, the length of time you have your accounts open is a factor. Now, whether getting a new number from Chase (or whomever) counts as closing one account and opening another new one, I don't know.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Jerk[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:22:31 PM PDT

There is no need to be rude. I am not disputing what actually occurs. I am arguing that that should not occur. You seem to be attacking me, but you have failed to provide a valid argument against what I've said. Now shoo!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Discover and Citi[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:56:54 PM PDT

I have used Discover's SOAN (Secure Online Account Number) and Citi's VAN (Virtual Account Number). SOAN is designed so that only one merchant can charge to the number you provide them. If the account number should fall into someone else's hands, they won't be able to use it at any other merchant. I know, you the cardholder are protected from unauthorized charges anyway, but it's a hassle to dispute invalid charges. SOAN probably is more of a benefit to the merchant and Discover than to the cardholder.

With Citi's VAN, you can create an account that is good from two to twelve months, and optionally you can specify a maximum that can be charged to the account. Later, you can also go in and raise the maximum if you want to. I don't know for sure if the account is tied to the first merchant that charges to it, but I believe it is.

Overall, VAN is the more useful program for the cardholder, but it is slightly more complicated to use than SOAN.

[ Reply to This ]



Great Article[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:34:41 PM PDT

Great Article, i agreee with youInternet Marketing 迷你倉 護膚 .

[ Reply to This ]


Reader Voices: Autorenewal Defenses | 25 comments (25 topical) | Post A Comment
Display: Sort:
Recent Entries
A few things
3 comments

Thank you
14 comments

Ed Foster: 1949-2008
73 comments

Dell notebook turns into a Bad Buy
8 comments

Of Apple, Psystar users, and copyright
8 comments

The suspicious death of XP support
30 comments

More The Gripelog...

Submit a gripe
About the Author
Email Ed Foster

Help Ed and his readers build these projects:
The Gripewiki
The EULA Library

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Live Gripes
Has AOL Changed Their Ways?
7 comments

A Nestle SweeTarts Conspiracy
18 comments

AT&T Kills "Bad" Username
33 comments

DESPERATE! AOL HAS TAKEN OVER MY COMPUTER
54 comments

parkingticket.com SCAM on refunds
33 comments

Don't let Net Enforcers Ruin Your Day.
18 comments

More Live Gripes...

Sign up for my newsletter

To have my column automatically e-mailed to you, submit your email address in the form below. Of course, I will not turn your address over to any other party or send you any unrequested e-mail.

Infoworld Blogs

Recomended Sites
The AFFECT Coalition
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Free Software Foundation
HearUsNow.org
Public Knowledge
StopBadware.org

Jeff Angus
Ben Edelman
Dan Gillmor
Bob Lewis
Brian Livingston
Freedom to Tinker
Lawmeme
PC World's Techlog
SunBeltSoftware Blog
Troubleshootsers.com

Rss Feeds
How this works
 Top News 
 Columnists 
 Tech Watch 
 Test Center Reviews 
 Applications 
 App Development 
 E-Business Solutions & Strategies 
 End-user Hardware 
 Networking 
 Operating Systems 
 Platforms 
 Security 
 Standards & Protocols 
 Storage 
 Telecommunications 
 Wireless 
 Web Services 

 

create account | faq | search