New York City to become first in US to ban deceptive subscription practices

180

rrandycupertino about 2 hours ago 68 commentsRead Article on theguardian.com

DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

60% Positive

Analyzed from 1906 words in the discussion.

Discussion (68 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

jzer0cool•about 1 hour ago

Nintendo (subscription I have for my switch to access some older a classic games btw) is very good reminding me I have a subscription and whether I want to cancel (or renew). I don't have the email at hand but what I remember is thinking they really desire you to reflect to cancel (rather than a push to renew) if not wanting continued service. Sentiment of politeness and I find a good example what to do.

Also, not a subscription but seeing some dark practices after COVID onset at any fast-food like business (including cafes, juices, cupcakes, etc) where a preselected tip is selected. Default should be no.

throwaw12•6 minutes ago

Maybe their PMs haven't attended top MBA schools in the USA, yet

bikelang•39 minutes ago

I really appreciate companies that are transparent with renewals. I’m sure it cuts down on customer support load a lot too. Kagi goes as far as not billing you if you don’t use their service in the prior month. I was pretty shocked the first time I got that email. Made me a customer for life.

spiderfarmer•35 minutes ago

Sadly, it's often just because they were forced by the EU and several other markets.

kylecazar•3 minutes ago

I think the card networks are responsible for forcing subscription reminders. Annual renewal and when a trial ends.

They don't like disputes so it's preemptive.

expedition32•3 minutes ago

Well yeah in a perfect world we would not need laws against greed and fraud but alas.

dqv•about 1 hour ago

It goes

> Subject: Information about Your Automatic Renewal

> This is an automatically generated email from Nintendo for customers who have a Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack individual 12‑month (365‑day) membership set to renew automatically.

> Dear [user],

> Your Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack individual 12‑month (365‑day) membership will automatically renew soon.

> ...

> Deadline to turn off automatic renewal: [1 month from now]

It also does this right when you first sign up for automatic renewal except the deadline is [1 year from now].

Swizec•about 1 hour ago

> where a preselected tip is selected. Default should be no.

A lot of this push to higher and higher and preselected tip options comes from POS software providers (Square et al) and credit card companies. They make money on transaction volume. Higher transaction -> more fees

xp84•about 1 hour ago

I wonder if the bit about 'junk fees' will include undisclosed hotel fees. I just stayed there last week in a no-frills "hotel" which doesn't include daily room cleaning, has no staff at night, and has no amenities whatsoever, and they charged me a surprise-at-check-in $35 a night resort fee. This fee was not described in the booking.

criddell•22 minutes ago

That hotel may have broken an FTC rule that's been in effect for about a year now.

> Effective May 12, 2025, the FTC’s Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, 16 C.F.R. Part 464, prohibits bait-and-switch pricing and other tactics used to obscure and misrepresent total prices and fees for live-event tickets and short-term lodging.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/rule-unfair-...

sxp•about 2 hours ago

It's unclear whether this junk fee law will have teeth. In theory, California has the same anti-drip pricing law, but restaurants have a specific carve out [1] which is bullshit because the drip pricing that most people complain about is the X% "service charges" and "lifestyle fees" that restaurants have at the bottom of their menu in small print.

From what I can tell online, NYC rules won't have this carveout, but I haven't eaten there recently so I can't confirm.

[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

dghlsakjg•about 2 hours ago

Fees on one time services are not what this is targeting. This legislation is not meant to address that, and wouldn't apply to that.

They are going after recurring billing (that's what the headline means by "subscription"). It mentions things like gyms, online subscriptions etc.

It would be pretty wild if they had managed to get service fees at restaurants when they were not at all targeting service fees, restaurants or one time in person purchases.

sxp•about 1 hour ago

From TFA:

  > Rule from Mamdani administration ... targets ‘junk fees’
  > The city is also targeting so-called “junk fees” that raise the final price of everything from apartments to sporting events, with a proposed rule that requires sellers to “advertise the total price for any good or service, including all mandatory additional charges and fees, up front”, according to a release shared with the Guardian.

ryandrake•about 1 hour ago

> proposed rule that requires sellers to “advertise the total price for any good or service, including all mandatory additional charges and fees, up front”

This is going to be tough to enact, anywhere in the USA, even New York. There is nothing quite as American as "not knowing what you're going to pay for something until you have to pay." Whether it's your doctor bill, restaurant bill with tips and service fees, your hotel stay with a hidden resort fee, or just general purchases where tax is computed at the very end right before you pay... We are culturally so used to this abuse.

xp84•about 1 hour ago

Check who Mamdani's friends are to find the likely carveouts - just like Newsom's Panera Carve-Out on our minimum wage law.

teaearlgraycold•about 1 hour ago

At least in CA they need to disclose them now. Previously some restaurants would just hit you with a surprise mandatory tip.

Rebelgecko•about 1 hour ago

Usually by the time people are seated and you read the fine print on the back of the menu, inertia has taken over.

pkaye•22 minutes ago

Some people say they use the fine print as a reminder to cut back on the tips proportionally.

wnevets•about 2 hours ago

> which is bullshit because the drip pricing that most people complain about is the X% "service charges" and "lifestyle fees" that restaurants have at the bottom of their menu in small print.

I don't think I go to the same restaurants as everyone else.

nkrisc•about 1 hour ago

I tried searching for what a "lifestyle fee" is and all I could find is references to "living wage fee" which is essentially a forced tip added to the bill.

A service charge for large groups though is understandable as they typically will require much more attention and work from waitstaff than the typical small dining party.

pnw•about 1 hour ago

Large groups are also the most notorious non-tippers.

buzer•about 1 hour ago

It's unfortunately somewhat common these days and personally I actively avoid any place which does this. At least it's only somewhat common rather than the standard so it's still possible. Couple of examples:

https://sushiconfidential.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/sc_... "3.5% Living Wage Surcharge added to each bill which allows us to provide the service you have always enjoyed!"

https://www.pacificcatch.com/menu/ "NorCal - A 3% surcharge (5% in San Francisco) will be added to all Guest checks to help offset the rising cost of wages and benefits. This is not gratuity."

quickthrowman•1 minute ago

They need to price it in to the menu.

I run Union electrical jobs and I don’t list out every fringe benefit they receive on an itemized invoice. It’s $163/hr with everything baked in.

If restaurants want to pay a living wage, charge more money for food.

patrickmay•about 1 hour ago

Because increasing prices by that percentage is too hard?

petilon•about 1 hour ago

Will New York City residents be able to avoid AT&T's "Administrative and Regulatory Cost Recovery Fee"?

https://www.al.com/news/2026/07/att-customers-your-cell-phon...

bkeyes•34 minutes ago

Funny this should come up today.

I just got a notice from my credit card company that Evernote just charged my credit card after 2 'successful' cancellations of my subscription each of the last 2 years, and the complete deletion of my account several months ago.

Hopefully these will become more widespread - I'm not in NY or CA.

brookside•23 minutes ago

Bending Spoons acquired Evernote:

"What is Bending Spoons? The little-known AOL and Vimeo owner that's now public" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48799966

summarybot•32 minutes ago

Sharks will keep eating easy prey until they hit an iron bar. I also hate this fact about the world by the way :) Just a [hardwon] observation.

puchatek•17 minutes ago

People who forget to cancel are easy prey.

Cancelling then being charged anyway is something else. Something akin to being robbed IMHO.

vvpan•25 minutes ago

A complimentary complaint is that payments are a "pull" operation with subscriptions. You can't decide who gets your money. How retro is that!

munk-a•about 2 hours ago

I suppose right now there is no federal preemption - but I fully expect gym & similar lobbying at the federal level to get a rule in place to allow preemption challenges.

nadermx•about 1 hour ago

The irony with all this, is if a company makes it difficult to cancel their subscription, it's probably not a good product. Antidotically, I've found that making it easy for users to not only cancel, but refund, has given me eye opening things to fix in some products that made it so less people cancelled or refunded. So I try to always err on best user experience.

plagiarist•30 minutes ago

You are interested in providing something worth paying for. Other people are interested in maximizing ROI for ad spend.

CSMastermind•24 minutes ago

Is this something that cities can really enforce? Like I get that NYC is a bit of an exception but let's say a 5 person town in Wyoming decides that they want to make this practice illegal and they all vote to do so. It's not clear to me that would mean anything at all.

kulahan•23 minutes ago

Your question answers exactly how enforceable it is. It’s directly linked to your population size and how much it can hurt the wallet of the company.

Edit: but also, who cares? Literally no solution to anything on earth works for EVERYONE

summarybot•33 minutes ago

Just compel Stripe to do it,* problem 99% solved.

*Direct click-to-cancel with subscription receipt.

econ•about 2 hours ago

Maybe it should be required to review quality laws in other countries in general. One advantage is that you don't have to pretend or imagine what will happen if it's been tested in the wild.

gzer0•about 1 hour ago

Another one that belongs on this list: AI-generated photos in housing listings. You can no longer tell what the property actually looks like, and the images conveniently erase the problem spots you'd only catch in person. False advertising is getting completely out of hand.

nemomarx•about 1 hour ago

It's crazy that people think they should get away with these. I've seen some examples where basic things like the number of windows or where the garage and driveway are was totally misrepresented - surely they'd at least look at the results?

CodingJeebus•44 minutes ago

I agree, but how does one begin to enforce a ban like this? Bait-and-switch has always existed in real estate, which is all the more reason to do full due-diligence and inspect the property thoroughly and not just put in an offer sight unseen. If a seller is using AI to that extent, I'd be worried about what else they're hiding about the property.

plagiarist•26 minutes ago

Simply remove protections and deal out massive fines to platforms hosting obviously fraudulent listings, they will figure out solutions overnight.

drcongo•about 2 hours ago

Any chance you could lend Mamdani to the UK? We have a vacancy.

Apocryphon•9 minutes ago

Hasn’t Sadiq Khan been a similar story, from a Muslim immigrant family turned popular mayor of the nation’s largest city? Though from what I understand he’s from the more business-oriented center-left, in contrast with Mamdani.

xp84•41 minutes ago

Depends who you ask!

bell-cot•about 2 hours ago

No mention of the New York Times, or its practices?

gruez•about 2 hours ago

Why should it be mentioned? The article doesn't call out any other specific company by name. Is the Times really that egregious of a offender compared to the other businesses? Does new york city have a history of selectively enforcing laws to favor local businesses?

cm2012•about 1 hour ago

New York Times is one of the worst and most famous offenders of making it hard to cancel your subscription. There are companies that make it as hard or spammy but few with the reach of the NYT

wincy•about 2 hours ago

If anything, based on Louis Rossman’s experiences it’s quite the opposite - petty bureaucrats do their damndest to ensure it’s as difficult as possible to run a business in New York.

bell-cot•about 1 hour ago

I was thinking more of the Times and Guardian being in rather similar lines of work, and the opportunity to cast some shade on a rival.

ChrisArchitect•about 1 hour ago

Official release: https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/07/mayor-mamdani...

TylerE•about 1 hour ago

A big one I’ve been seeing a lot lately is advertising annual subscriptions as monthly rates. It isn’t $12/month subscription if I have to pay $120 in a lump sum up front. The actual monthly rate is often basically double what they’re advertising.

Jblx2•about 1 hour ago

>$12/month subscription if I have to pay $120 in a lump sum up front.

Sounds like they are giving you two months free if you pay with a lump sum in advance.

arrowsmith•27 minutes ago

Yes but it's always advertised as "$12/MONTH" in big letters with billed annually written somewhere small and non-obvous.

nemomarx•about 1 hour ago

Which is a fair discount, but it should be like "15 a month, 120 if you get a year up front" right?

cyberax•about 1 hour ago

Nice. Now just force stores to display actual prices with tax.

summarybot•36 minutes ago

In Australia they call this price the price-"sorted."

"7 dollars sorted." for example.

j45•22 minutes ago

Long overdue, enshittification reaching SaaS undermines trust in all tech in the long term.

josefritzishere•about 1 hour ago

This should be federal law.

Arubis•about 1 hour ago

Indeed. But the feds have picked a side, and right now, it's not yours.

Razengan•about 1 hour ago

Did a politician's kid rack up hundreds of dollars on some stupid game?

I still don't know why Apple, oft parading as the people's champion, automatically converts trials to subscriptions.

So many scummy apps exploit this by offering a 1 week trial and saying like "only $4/month!" but charging a 1 year's sub after the trial period ends.

aioproductos•about 1 hour ago

I'm building a SaaS right now and made the "non-deceptive" choices this law wants: cancellation is one click from settings, no retention maze, no surprise renewal, 30-day money-back. What surprised me is how much the tooling assumes you want the dark patterns. Billing platforms ship "cancellation flow" templates that are really retention funnels — discount offer, pause offer, survey, guilt screen, then maybe the button. The default path is the deceptive path; you have to actively rip stuff out to be straightforward.

Which I think explains why this needs regulation at all. Every individual dark pattern is locally rational — it demonstrably improves net retention, so any PM optimizing a dashboard will keep it. The cost (people who feel trapped and tell everyone) never shows up in the same spreadsheet. Markets are bad at pricing "customers who quietly hate you."

The one-click-cancel requirement is the part with real teeth. Junk-fee rules die by carve-out (see California's restaurant exemption), but "cancel must be as easy as signup" is binary enough to actually enforce.

clonedhuman•about 1 hour ago

OH NO THIS IS THE SOCIALISMS!!!!!111

summarybot•35 minutes ago

How many legislative days did it take to get this policy in place, I wonder