Forced retention of payment methods: Difference between revisions
m Added relevant Amazon link. (Sorry for the piecemeal edits!) |
removed unnecessary spacing + {{main} formatting. |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Incomplete|Issue 1=Not a reference in sight.}} | {{Incomplete|Issue 1=Not a reference in sight.}} | ||
'''Forced retention of payment methods''' is when online platforms and payment processors store user payment credentials, often without a clear or easily accessible way to revoke them. In many cases, cards or payment authorizations remain attached to an account unless a new method is added or until the account itself is deleted. This design restricts users’ control over their financial data and could potentially result in unwanted recurring charges. | '''Forced retention of payment methods''' is when online platforms and payment processors store user payment credentials, often without a clear or easily accessible way to revoke them. In many cases, cards or payment authorizations remain attached to an account unless a new method is added or until the account itself is deleted. This design restricts users’ control over their financial data and could potentially result in unwanted recurring charges. | ||
The issue disproportionately affects individuals with limited financial resources, as well as non-profit or low-budget users, who may lack the legal or technical knowledge required to challenge such systems. | The issue disproportionately affects individuals with limited financial resources, as well as non-profit or low-budget users, who may lack the legal or technical knowledge required to challenge such systems. | ||
==How it works== | ==How it works== | ||
In most cases, forced retention of payment methods is implemented through user interfaces that do not allow stored payment data to be removed unless a replacement method is added. Some platforms go further, requiring the deletion of the entire account in order to erase billing credentials. | In most cases, forced retention of payment methods is implemented through user interfaces that do not allow stored payment data to be removed unless a replacement method is added. Some platforms go further, requiring the deletion of the entire account in order to erase billing credentials. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 9: | ||
Overall, these systems are designed in a way that favors continued billing and makes revocation difficult, non-obvious, or impossible without contacting support. | Overall, these systems are designed in a way that favors continued billing and makes revocation difficult, non-obvious, or impossible without contacting support. | ||
==Why it is a problem== | ==Why it is a problem== | ||
Forced retention of payment methods causes long-term risks for consumers by removing their ability to control how and when they are billed. When a person cannot revoke stored card data or stop an ongoing billing authorization, unwanted charges become more likely. This risk increases when services use automatic renewals or hide cancellation options. | Forced retention of payment methods causes long-term risks for consumers by removing their ability to control how and when they are billed. When a person cannot revoke stored card data or stop an ongoing billing authorization, unwanted charges become more likely. This risk increases when services use automatic renewals or hide cancellation options. | ||
| Line 18: | Line 15: | ||
These obstacles are often made worse by unclear interfaces, delayed menus, or wording that makes it difficult to understand how to stop payments. | These obstacles are often made worse by unclear interfaces, delayed menus, or wording that makes it difficult to understand how to stop payments. | ||
==Examples== | ==Examples== | ||
===Amazon=== | ===Amazon=== | ||
{{Main|Amazon sued for enrolling and charging customers into Audible without consent}} | |||
A class-action lawsuit is currently pending against Amazon for enrolling customers into Audible and charging them the $14.95 monthly subscription fee without notice or consent. Grace Sherk, the plaintiff, claims this act by Amazon was only possible due to the company holding customers' payment and billing information by default<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-04-23 |title=Amazon Audible faces class action over unauthorized subscriptions |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/amazon-audible-faces-class-action-over-unauthorized-subscriptions/ |website=Top Class Actions}}</ref>. When combined with Audible's failure to enact [[click-to-cancel]], customers' were locked into monthly payments until they could resolve the issue with customer service. | A class-action lawsuit is currently pending against Amazon for enrolling customers into Audible and charging them the $14.95 monthly subscription fee without notice or consent. Grace Sherk, the plaintiff, claims this act by Amazon was only possible due to the company holding customers' payment and billing information by default<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-04-23 |title=Amazon Audible faces class action over unauthorized subscriptions |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/amazon-audible-faces-class-action-over-unauthorized-subscriptions/ |website=Top Class Actions}}</ref>. When combined with Audible's failure to enact [[click-to-cancel]], customers' were locked into monthly payments until they could resolve the issue with customer service. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
[[Category:Common terms]] | [[Category:Common terms]] | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||