Forced retention of payment methods

⚠️ Article status notice: This article has been marked as incomplete

This article needs additional work for its sourcing and verifiability to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. In particular:

1. Not a reference in sight.

This notice will be removed once the issue/s highlighted above have been addressed and sufficient documentation has been added to establish the systemic nature of these issues. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, please visit the Moderator's noticeboard, or the discord and post to the #appeals channel.

Learn more ▼

This Article Requires Additional Verification

---

This article has been flagged due to verification concerns. While the topic might have merit, the claims presented lack citations that live up to our standards, or rely on sources that are questionable or unverifiable by our standards. Articles must meet the Moderator Guidelines and Mission statement; factual accuracy and systemic relevance are required for inclusion here!

Why This Article Is In Question

---

Articles in this wiki are required to:

• Provide verifiable & credible evidence to substantiate claims.
• Avoid relying on anecdotal, unsourced, or suspicious citations that lack legitimacy.
• Make sure that all claims are backed by reliable documentation or reporting from reputable sources.

Examples of issues that trigger this notice:

• A topic that heavily relies on forum posts, personal blogs, or other unverifiable sources.
• Unsupported claims with no evidence or citations to back them up.
• Citations to disreputable sources, like non-expert blogs or sites known for spreading misinformation.

How You Can Improve This Article

---

To address verification concerns:

• Replace or supplement weak citations with credible, verifiable sources.
• Make sure that claims are backed by reputable reporting or independent documentation.
• Provide additional evidence to demonstrate systemic relevance and factual accuracy. For example:
  • Avoid: Claims based entirely on personal anecdotes or hearsay without supporting documentation.
  • Include: Corporate policies, internal communications, receipts, repair logs, verifiable video evidence, or credible investigative reports.

If you believe this notice has been placed in error, or once the article has been updated to address these concerns, please visit the #appeals channel on our Discord server: Join here.

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.

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.

Another variant involves payment intermediaries (like PayPal), where billing agreements are created automatically during a one-time purchase without an explicit consent process^{[citation needed]}. These agreements remain active unless manually revoked, which is often hidden behind asynchronous interfaces or inaccessible menus.

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

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.

Many users are not offered a simple way to delete a card or cancel a billing agreement. This situation puts the burden on the user while disadvantaging those with limited time, resources, or legal knowledge. Some may even feel compelled to delete their account or give up access to services just to stop the billing.

These obstacles are often made worse by unclear interfaces, delayed menus, or wording that makes it difficult to understand how to stop payments.

Examples

Amazon

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. 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.

Pattern of friction and discouragement

Across all three services, the user describes a consistent pattern in which the resolution of unauthorized or unwanted billing was made progressively more difficult over time. The timeline reveals the following escalation:

• December 2024: First support requests made (Captivate, Book Like A Boss), including a request to remove card details. Initial steps were ignored or rendered ineffective.
• March 2025: Internal account audits and review of bank statements, trying to identify the source of charges.
• May 2025: Profile deletion and new contact attempts. In one case, this led to total data loss. In another, the request was unanswered, and the payment method remained.
• June 2025: A final step was taken: issuing a formal card cancellation to prevent further withdrawals.

In all cases, the process demanded several months of monitoring, multiple contact attempts, and irreversible actions like deleting an account, without ever obtaining a clean or documented resolution from the services involved.

This progression reflects a strategy of friction-based discouragement, whether intentional or not. It increases the user’s emotional and administrative burden, causing delays, hesitation, or abandonment. Some actions (such as using a non-trackable support form, or hiding critical menu items in late-loading interfaces) further amplify this effect by amplifying the user's confusion and reducing trust in the process.

Legal framework

Article 6 and 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

In the UK and EU, these articles define the lawfulness of processing and the right to erasure. If a user requests the removal of stored financial data and the platform refuses unless a new payment method is provided, this may violate both articles.

Article 12 of the GDPR

This article requires that any interface related to data control be concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible. In one case, PayPal delayed the display of the “automatic payments” menu using asynchronous loading scripts. This made the cancellation option harder to find and act upon.

Article L133-8 of the French Monetary and Financial Code

This provision states that any pre-authorized payment must remain revocable at any time before execution. In the case involving PayPal and Cdiscount, the user could not cancel the agreement even though no ongoing service or debt existed.

Article L121-1 of the French Consumer Code

This article prohibits misleading commercial practices. Automatically creating a billing agreement without explicit consent or visible contract may fall under this category.

Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights

This directive requires that any information related to billing, subscriptions or renewals be provided in a clear and accessible way. In all examples cited, such information was absent or concealed.