That's ok
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
New York State Sues SiriusXM Over Cancellation Processes
- Thread starter speer360
- Start date
I hope this lawsuit doesn't mess up being able to call and say you want to cancel, but then they give you a better deal to stay. I do that every year for two subscriptions.
That's my different perspective. That and the government screws up a lot of things when they get involved.
That's my different perspective. That and the government screws up a lot of things when they get involved.
Allowing SXM to play cat and mouse games with customers isn't right. You should be able to call or go online and negotiate a rate without having to waste time making empty threats about cancelling.
I called to cancel my DirecTV subscription this past Saturday, and when the rep asked why after so many years I was cancelling, I told her that I was tired of them jacking my rate a few dollars every couple months. So she said well, what about if I give you our VIP customer rate at $78 less than what you pay now? So I told her that I was insulted by that offer. Rather than trying to stick it to a "VIP customer" by jacking their rate hoping they won't notice, why not offer me the reduced rate when my account renews? Why should I have to sit on hold to have you show appreciation for my business? I told her that makes me want to cancel my account that much more.
Based on the NY suit I hope SXM either figures that out or next time you call, they listen to what you're threatening and just cancel you. Whoops!
Since the discounts and refusal to cancel when asked are all part of the corporate strategy to keep subscriber churn down, SXM most likely will be doing this for as long as it can find a legal loophole to support the practice. After all, it wants the best possible numbers to report to the SEC and its shareholders, no matter how it produces them. An adverse decision in the New York case, I'd imagine, will result in SXM turning its legal team loose on appeal after appeal.
This is a consumer protection situation, not one that's going to impress the SEC. Besides, the SEC isn't easily impressed.
I get the reason why places like SXM and DirecTV make you call to cancel. But if the requirement is to use the website to signup as a new customer, it should be just as simple to cancel. They can make that possible like other companies/sites, where if you click the cancel account button, a special offer pops up and the ability to reconsider.
One of the accusations against SXM is once you reach a rep and ask to be cancelled, first they try to talk you out of cancelling, then they drop the call if you still insist on cancelling. Then when you try calling back, they leave you on hold for an extended period, hoping that you'll give and intending to call back later or just forget it.
Sleezy tactics.
In reading the suit, NY State has a pretty good case.
If they were making it so you couldn't cancel at all, that would be grounds for the government getting involved, but just because it's inconvenient, in my mind, is not a good reason. I'm not someone who agrees with asking the government to get involved in everything that people don't like. This is a case where I would let the market speak for itself.
I didn't find it that hard to cancel. My wife decided it was a waste of money the subscription in her car. We just called and didn't let them talk us into any deals. If that wouldn't have worked, I would have called the credit card company and told them that a SiriusXM charge is a fraudulent charge. I guess people forget that you don't have to give companies your money.
If after that they renewed someone's subscription without getting paid and then tried to mess up their credit, that would be different.
So if the rep isn't able to talk you into one of their 'please stay' prices and they hang up on you before helping you cancel, that's still okay? Is that sort of thing what you call the market speaking?
But it wouldn't have been a fraudulent charge, nor should you have to lie to your credit card company to cancel a subscription.
But what if you purchase their products or services and then do not pay? Wouldn't that be considered theft?
It most certainly would be a fraudulent charge if I called and told them I was cancelling and they didn't cancel my subscription. I did not sign a contract. That's not lying to the CC company. They would be charging me for something I said I did not want. I could record me telling them that, if that's a game they wanted to play.
"But what if you purchase their products or services and then do not pay? Wouldn't that be considered theft?"
I don't understand your question here. If I called to tell them I am cancelling, I'm telling them I'm no longer going to purchase from them. You pre-pay for a subscription for a length of time. They can't force you to keep paying for future service.
But again, as has been reported and part of the NY State lawsuit; what if when you called the SXM rep to cancel, you refused their discounted offers, but the line suddenly disconnected before they could cancel your subscription? Would you then contact your credit card company and report that charge as fraudulent?
The question followed your statement: "I guess people forget that you don't have to give companies your money."
Does the suit seek to prove SXM is using "accidental" (nudge nudge, wink wink) disconnects as a way to frustrate subscribers into keeping their subscriptions rather than waste more time on the phone with follow-up attempts to cancel? Is faking a disconnect in such a way illegal or just a sleazy, but technically OK, way of doing business?
It directly accuses SXM of blocking or throwing barriers in front of customers who want to cancel their subscription.
The assumption is phone reps are encouraged to retain a customer and potentially punished if a customer cancels. Reading between the lines, it seems like the reps may be taking it upon themselves to disconnect a call in an effort to avoid having their name attached to a cancellation, but that's all supposition at this point.
New York’s attorney general says SiriusXM’s annoying cancellation process is actually illegal
The company reported a drop of 336,000 subscribers to its flagship satellite radio service in the first nine months of 2023.
www.theverge.com
New York sues SiriusXM, accusing company of making it deliberately hard to cancel subscriptions
New York’s attorney general has filed suit against SiriusXM, accusing the satellite radio service of making it intentionally difficult for its customers to cancel their subscriptions.
apnews.com
SiriusXM Sued Over ‘Illegal’ Cancellation Process, New York Attorney General Says
The process of canceling a SiriusXM subscription isn't just annoying — it's illegal, according to a lawsuit filed by New York's attorney general.
variety.com
I personally would, yes. If the CC company wanted to fight me (probably not, considering how much I've used them over the years), I'd just call to cancel my subscription again and record the conversation, and play that for the CC company "investigator".
Kind of a pain, but doable. If they truly are just hanging up on people to make it hard to cancel, then that is "sleazy" for sure, and they should be called out for it, but it still doesn't convince me that I want the government meddling in it. I think there are other ways to handle it. Heck, look how social media is used to destroy companies and individuals.
There are many factors, and I've learned to not take much at face value. It wouldn't surprise me if this is really coming from someone wanting to make a name for themselves, or someone with grander political aspirations.
Now if someone wants to sue them for their lame new Windows browser streaming app, that would be another thing (just joking). They are being trashed online for that. It will be interesting to see what happens with that, if anything; and the lawsuit will be interesting to watch.
I watched the video. Entertaining, but also pretty whiny. I mean we all get spam calls all the time. He talks like he has to answer the calls. Just don't answer, or hang up as soon as you hear who it is. The company was behaving stupidly, yes, but he isn't required to waste his time with them.
On the AOL thing, I'm old enough, and had AOL back in the day. I remember paying some low amount for it every month, but at some point converted it to a free account. I don't recall that being much trouble. Maybe I got lucky, but also it's been too long for me to remember how I did that.
On the AOL thing, I'm old enough, and had AOL back in the day. I remember paying some low amount for it every month, but at some point converted it to a free account. I don't recall that being much trouble. Maybe I got lucky, but also it's been too long for me to remember how I did that.
Ironically, just today I got on a live chat online with someone to tell them I would cancel if they didn't give me a better price for my two active subscriptions, which were going to renew at the full price tomorrow. That's the first time I tried with a chat rather than calling. It was easy. Probably took about 15 minutes since they work on the two separately.
It's not the same as really wanting to cancel, because I wanted to keep the service, but it was well worth the time. I think they gave me about 60% off the full price (which is way too high) for a year.
It's not the same as really wanting to cancel, because I wanted to keep the service, but it was well worth the time. I think they gave me about 60% off the full price (which is way too high) for a year.
Somewhat related - it seems like each year I get to deal with something similar from McAfee antivirus. I buy their product at a fair rate, then each year at about the same time I get an e-mail from them telling me they auto-renewed my subscription at a rate about 3x what I'd initially paid. I call them, tell them I never agreed to auto-renew and tell them I'm not paying a penny more than what a new subscription would cost. They agree to price match the cost of a new subscription, promise to discontinue the auto-renew and the next year it happens again. Insanity, but so long as they agree to price match the lowest available rate each time, I don't so much mind.
The problem is, you're rewarding them for their bad behavior, unethical business practices. Same with SXM. They keep doing it because it keeps working, at least well enough. If *everyone* called and cancelled for real, and each subscriber told them precisely why it was being cancelled without pulling any punches, I guarantee the nonsense would stop pretty rapidly. But it has to become a mass movement or the companies will continue to treat it as so much noise.
I don't disagree, but speaking only for myself in this particular situation with McAfee, so long as I get the lowest price in the end, I don't so much care. Yes, it's a minor inconvenience (looking at the outgoing call I made, it took 6 minutes, a few of which I spent on hold), but really isn't a big deal.
That said, yes, these companies that place people on auto-renewal do so hoping consumers don't catch the e-mail they send and don't catch the charge to their credit card... but, as has been discussed elsewhere on this site, even many charitable organizations (including NPR) often encourage donors to sign up for monthly installments rather than making a 1-time contribution, hoping for the same - that contributors forget about it, and the monthly charges just keep hitting their credit cards each month without their cancelling.
I'm amazed at how many people I know who don't seem to even know what they're paying for. It's just so foreign to me because I look at every credit card charge. One of my friends told me something like 10 months went by before he realized he'd been paying for some kind of sports package on YouTube that he wasn't using. I think he said it was around $100 a month. I even questioned that amount, but that's what he said.
I'm sure companies love that some people don't pay attention to their finances.
- Status