There's something odd about legislation of this ilk. Virtually every comment here bemoans these nefarious activities, and the commenters themselves try to avoid companies that utilize these dark patterns. The market, therefore, seems to be working - the companies that pull this type of nefarious BS find their way into the dumpster of failed ventures (as they should!). Would a law, in effect, force companies to mask their unsavory dispositions? Customer LTV is actually higher when they are given the opportunity to control their subscriptions...
> the companies that pull this type of nefarious BS find their way into the dumpster of failed ventures
What are some examples of companies that failed over this? All I’m seeing here are very large very healthy companies being named like NYT, WSJ, Sirius, etc.
Seeing anecdotes of a few people trying to avoid being scammed doesn’t demonstrate a functioning market. If anything, the evidence here is the opposite of what you suggest: that dark patterns are working on the public at large and companies can easily get away with bad behavior indefinitely if allowed to.
> Would a law, in effect, force companies to mask their unsavory dispositions?
How would that work here, exactly? If there’s a cancel button, then there’s a cancel button.
Regulation has worked well for many, many things. Companies sometimes do need to be told what’s not acceptable, and they have in the past complied once told.
Can we truly scour the internet for small-time violators? Sure, if a massive entity like NYT or WSJ fail to comply, that could be called-out and addressed. But are we prepared to enforce such a paradigm at scale?
Yes, we are prepared to enforce this. That’s precisely what laws, courts, and an enforcement agency are for. This process has worked many times in the past and it will work now and in the future.
I don’t understand your implied objection. Yes, small time violators, and big time violators alike, will be reported by their customers. Currently, customers don’t have any place at all to take their complaints, because it’s not illegal for a company to attempt to prevent a subscription cancellation.
How do you propose to call out and address the issue without a law? How are you proposing to enforce individual violations, and what is the violation exactly? You claimed that market forces were taking care of this already, but that’s not true, and runs in direct contradiction to the mountain of evidence in this thread alone.
the major difference is that so far, if a company provides the honest service, they are at a disadvantage. But since the law equalizes the process for everyone, they are not at a disadvantage anymore.
Are the companies that offer honest service disadvantaged in the long-run? Sure, in the short-term, a captive audience is profitable, but eventually, this should harm LTV?
I don't see how they would be advantaged. Their users are leaving, the chances of re-subscribing are small, while the users of their competitors are not leaving. Their honest service is a small thing to matter in the overall perception of their product, especially when the biggest names in the sector are using dark patterns.
