Wired Strongarms Subscribers?

yali writes "Wired has apparently been sinking to some rather low tactics with ex-subscribers. Namely, siccing a collections agency on them. If you let your subscription run out, you might get one of these. Nerds beware." From the article: "First came the usual letters warning McMillan, 36, that his subscription was up and that he wouldn't get any more copies of Wired unless he ponied up some cash. Then Wired's correspondence took a different turn. In May, McMillan received a letter from North Shore Agency, a leading debt-collection firm. The letter, headed 'Please Respond,' said he owed $12 for his Wired subscription."

Comments

Stupidity.

[Vermifax]

It is your responsibility to read your subscription agreement.

If you agree to a renewing subscription and do not pay it, you have only yourself to blame.

If you ignore any request for payment from any company even if its fraudulent you again have only yourself to blame if you do not challenge it.

Re:Stupidity.

[Doctor_Jest]

That's why you write a big "CANCEL" on the renewal bill and you're done.

They have to honor that.

Problem solved.

Re:Stupidity.

[OldManAndTheC]

Stupidity? No. Inattention, perhaps. I'm certain that many intelligent people fail to read the entire contract for minor items like a magazine subscription.

I'd say if the subscriber is guilty of anything, it is having an excess of trust. There was a time (not too long ago) when in dealing with a large, well established company one could be reasonably secure in the knowledge that they would NOT take advantage of "fine print" clauses like this one, which are obviously designed to squeeze out a few dollars from people who didn't read the contract. Now it appears that taking advantage of the customer has become a common practice, so that we do have to read the several pages of fine print in every commercial transaction. That's a pretty sad state of affairs, wouldn't you agree?

So no, we do not have "only ourselves to blame". The short sighted greed of unethical people is also part of the problem.

Not all that unusual...

[EnronHaliburton2004]

What's new here? The fact that Wired (or rather, an agent of Wired) does this? People have received letters like this from other magazines for decades. I wouldn't be suprised if Wired has been sending these out for the last 10 years.

In all honesty, Wired probably doesn't manage their subscription service. They hire some 3rd party to do it for them.

I remember when PC Gamer, Next Generation, Boot, etc used to send these out all the friggen time--- TO CHILDREN!

I don't like it either. It's one reason I only have 2 magazine subscriptions. The other companies have pissed me off...

debt collection.

[Erris]

First, some pleasant words from your Government. They sound so soothing, don't they? Your tax dollars at work protecting you from harassment. yah, right. What kind of employer would approve of you being called for a bill you supposedly did not pay? Oh, but if you send them a written letter saying you don't owe any money they have to knock it off until they send you a copy of a bill saying you do.

Now check out what North Shore Agency promisses their customers,

• Continuous Customer Contact, by phone, e-commerce, even their very own US Post office.
• A whole team of specialists with 65,000 square feet of office space!
• "Art of the Collection Letter," for maximum intimidation.
• Total Data Processing - I'm afraid to ask, but they got computers, perhaps their very own line to credit agencies.

The limits of liability are galling:

What can you do if you believe a debt collector violated the law? You have the right to sue a collector in a state or federal court within one year from the date from the date the law was violated. If you win, you may recover money for the damages you suffered plus an additional amount up to $1000. Court costs and attorneys fees also can be recovered. A group of people also may sue a debt collector and recover money for damages up to $500,000, or one percent of the collectors net worth, whichever is less.

So how many thousands of dollars can be made by abusing thousands of people? Yet the limit is $500,000. Disgusting.

I'm sure I've only scraped the tip of the iceburg here. I've never been served one of these letters and am unaware of anything on my own credit record. Be aware however that bad credit will cost you dearly when you try to buy a car, house or anything else you can't buy outright. Is that teeth enough for you?

If this story is true, it's deplorable. Wired is not, I hope, so stupid as to burn the world's good will $12 at a time.

Re:That's it

[Walter Wart]

Ah, but you fail to grasp the true beauty of capitalism. I'd put out ads everywhere ATFFC products were sold saying:

"Bought a Bobbie's Bits product? Embarassed to cash the refund check? I'll pay you fifty cents on the dollar in cash for your refund cheque."

Then I'd take them into my bank by the hundred weight without a shred of self consciousness. Bring in one, you're a pervert. Bring in a thousand, you're a businessman.

Re:RTFA ok?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slipping in an autorenewal is sleazy and I won't consider subscribing after reading the story. I'm already fighting to cancel several autodeductions now. It's a game companies have come up with to make it as hard as possible to cancel. A percentage will give up or not notice and keep paying. I've beenb steadily cutting back on subscription or membership services for this very reason. They may overall come out ahead with these tactics but they are loosing customers as well. You can blame the customer but it's like saying the Nigerian scammers aren't at fault their victums are to blame. They may have been guilible but it doesn't make the behavior less criminal. It may not be a crime but it is underhanded.

To hell with "fine print"

[GameMaster]

I've seen a few people here claim something to the extent of "it's his own fault, he should have read the fine print" and personally I have to say that's garbage. We live in a society that is absolutely inundated with "fine print". You almost can't avoid it no matter where you go. Much of it is confusing and hard to understand. To make matter worse, a good portion is repetitive info reworded slightly from "fine print" to "fine print" thus worsening the signal to noise ratio drastically.

Since the vast majority of people aren't lawyers (and probably lack the reading comprehension skills needed to read at that level); we can't expect people to thoroughly read through every single EULA, magazine subscription "fine print", etc. in order to know if any of the many convoluted, "lawyer speak", terms will screw you over in the end. This leaves average people to do exactly what most people do right now which is to "gloss over" "fine print" and hope for the best. In this particular case, Wired magazine took what would otherwise be generic "fine print" and slipped in a term radically different from what is the generally accepted method for handling magazine subscriptions. I feel that this should be looked upon as, at least, unethical and should, quite possibly, be considered fraudulent behavior.

What it boils down to is that we need to decide what kind of society we want to live in. Do we want to live in a society where the only way you can avoid being fleeced by big business is to be a lawyer who devotes a large portion of his/her free time to religiously reading the "fine print" to every single product or service he/she buys or signs up for no matter how small or trivial that product or service happens to be? The burden here should fall on the businesses providing the product/service in question.

Individuals have, for the most part, very limited resources (time, money, intellect, etc.) with which to comprehend threats posed by "fine print". If the burden were on the individual then that person would have to expend that effort for every example of "fine print" he/she is exposed to. In comparison, businesses usually have more resources with which to develop "fine print" that doesn't include clauses that aren't generally known and accepted by the community the product/service is being sold in. They only have to expend the overhead once for every product/service they release. Any significantly unusual terms should be listed in a manner that draws attention to it so that potential customers will notice it.

Unfortunately, at the present time, we seem to live in a society that allows large companies (like the ones in the software industry) to create complex licenses like software EULAs that contain clauses hidden away in the middle requiring you to hand over you first born son or all your worldly possessions in exchange for using their newest Operating System. We need to push our government to enact consumer protection laws that stop this kind of abuse.

-GameMater

Re:Fake Collection Agencies

[Lord_Dweomer]

"I've seen this tactic before. The 'collection agency' in question barely even exists, and certainly has no teeth. It's simply a very shady tactic, used by several magazines, to trick people into subscribing - sometimes they'll even send these notices to people who have never subscribed. Just garbage the letter and you'll be fine."

Ah yes....Slashdot: News for Nerds. People who Should NEVER Give Legal Advice.

Don't throw out the letter, file it away in case this ever amounts to anything. While I too believe it probably has no teeth, would you take advice from a guy on the street named "Driftingwalrus" who told you to ignore something like this? No offense meant to parent, but I just think you should avoid taking legal advice from someone who is quite obviously not a lawyer.

Re:Collections Agency - Automatic lost customer

[nunchux]

I have a policy of paying late fees only if/when I actually go back and rent another movie.

Well, see, there's the problem. Blockbuster doesn't have to respect your policies, but if you rent a movie from them you have to respect theirs.