Once you click to “get started”, this is toward the bottom of the page
Got it. Thanks.
So in the model is that the subscription goes on forever until I actively call them to cancel or (as in my case) the payment source dries up but they will still continue to deliver service in default for a few months.
As I suspected from looking at other sites, their terms are similar:
I’d say you’re on the hook.
Arrgh, ninja’d from an old page load.
I think it’s the paper’s hard luck, unless they specifically informed you that they were continuing delivery as a courtesy and expected you to acknowledge/decline their offer.
This is the exact reason why I refuse any offers of something free for a limited time, like added movie channels to cable. The onus is on me to “cancel” the free item or I will be hounded for $$. No thanks, don’t do me any “favors”.
Here in the UK, I told a local shop (a newsagents) that I wanted them to deliver newspapers* to me.
They bill me monthly.
If I want them to stop, I walk to the shop and tell them.
The newspapers have nothing to do with the agreement.
*The Telegraph on Wednesday and the Guardian on Saturday. I like to see both sides…
They say they will “charge” you. That’s a different thing than “billing” you.
Permission to charge is permission to use the provided means of payment to prepay (“charge it to my MasterCard”). Permission to bill is permission to provide payment after the fact (“Put this on Mr. Rockefeller’s bill”). Billing is basically a form of credit. Charging is just…paying for something.
I let a bunch of companies charge things automatically, for both of our convenience. I let very, very few people bill me (as in, only utilities) bill me. Those companies that can bill me have ample protections built in- I can set a max automatic charge on my electric bill, set up payment plans, etc.
Only if they charge after delivery. If they charge in advance, and the means of prepayment is declined, no one is forcing them to continue delivery. To do so without payment is their risk, not mine.
I’m sure it’d be a fine argument in court, but you’re up against the explicit T&Cs of the subscription. I wouldn’t hold much hope that a court is going to overthrow the predominant structure of subscription newspaper deliver nation-wide simply because of your argument.
You may think you’re right, because your argument is logical, but that doesn’t win court cases.
I’m not sure why you think there is a substantive difference between the two terms in this context. The terms say “charge you”. They are not literally running your body through their credit card reader, they are not subjecting you to electric shock. I think the meaning is clear.
This is not a valid argument. Look at the terms for the NY times. They specifically contemplate declined credit cards and state you’re still responsible for charges. The terms for this specific vendor state “Your subscription will continue … unless you cancel”. That’s pretty clear terms.
Because they are different things.
If I go to the grocery store and put more in my cart than I can afford, it’s fine for everyone except whoever has to res helge. They can charge me for my groceries, but they can’t bill me for them.
If I run my shower 24/7 and rack up a higher water bill than I can afford, I’m screwed. They bill me.
It’s not about the word, it’s about the method of getting money. If you provide your means of payment beforehand and pay before the service is proceed, you are being charged.
I don’t think they are in this context. The grocery store analogy is not on point because there is no agreement in place controlling the interaction. In the newspaper example, there is. Because of that, we can look to the language of the actual agreement. When it says:
Do you think they are saying that the subscription will continue for free? That’s not a reasonable reading. If they used the word “bill” in place of “charge”, I do not think the meaning of the terms as written would change substantively. Are you saying you disagree with this?