TRANSCRIPT
Many of us have a subscription we've fought to cancel... or have even given up trying after countless attempts.
It turns out this experience is more common than some might expect, with a new report highlighting that 75% of Australians have had some form of negative experience when trying to cancel a subscription.
A report by the Consumer Policy Research Centre has found that while subscribing can take a matter of seconds, cancelling a subscription often takes far longer.
And nearly half of Australians have spent more time than intended trying to cancel a subscription.
Chandni Gupta is Deputy Chief Executive and Digital Policy Director at the Consumer Policy Research Centre.
"What we found is that for Australians, subscription traps are costing them time, money, and ultimately their peace of mind. So we currently live in a digital economy where we own nothing and we subscribe to everything. And so it's such a shame to see, but it's not surprising that people are having trouble cancelling out of services they no longer need or want."
So what methods are businesses using to make it difficult for consumers to unsubscribe?
Ms Gupta explains.
"What we saw is that companies are using multiple complex screens. They're using a feature called dark patterns, which basically it's features that are added into websites and apps to make it really difficult for people to navigate their own choice. Often it's steering them into a choice that's profitable for the business, but ultimately not in the best interest of the consumer. And what that leads to is that you are not able to implement the choice that you've actually made when you say I want out."
Professor Luke Nottage - from Sydney University's Business Law school - is an expert in consumer law, but even he is not immune to these subscription traps.
He took out a year-long subscription to The Economist magaizne, which was discounted to half price, and which he said took only 30 seconds to sign up to.
But when Professor Nottage went to cancel his subscription, he was met with obstacles.
"Eventually you get to a webpage on the Economist Magazine where it says, oh, you can't do it online. You have to ring up and speak to someone in these business hours. And eventually you get through to someone who surprise, surprise, tries to say, well, please don't, are you sure you want cancel your subscription and maybe we can do a deal? And it's like, no, I just want to cancel it."
He was eventually able to cancel the subscription, but only after several days of trying.
Professor Nottage said he contacted the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which initially replied to say they had lodged their complaint, and after a follow up e-mail, directed Professor Nottage to reach out to their state regulator.
The ACCC said in a statement to SBS that they have been advocating for some time for an unfair trading practices prohibition, and in 2023 made a submission to the federal government's consultation calling for this prohibition to be introduced.
They added that businesses that operate a subscription trap business model may breach the Australian Consumer Law within the unfair contract term.
Professor Nottage says current Australian law doesn't allow for the arguably unfair practices that business' subscription services can sometimes adopt.
Current laws have prohibitions on misleading conduct - where you must prove a consumer has been misled - or on unconscionable conduct in trade, which relies on laws proving a business has taken advantage of someone's vulnerability.
Professor Nottage says the Federal Treasury commenced a review of the Australian consumer law in 2017, but specific changes around these subscription practices are yet to be enforced.
"I think we can't really obviously, push a lot further down the line of misleading conduct or unconscionable conduct, and that's why they were looking in particular in some sort of broader unfair commercial practices or unfair trading prohibition, which would sit if you like, even above the misleading and unconscionable conduct prohibition. And the model for this, which would be a new amendment to the Australian consumer law, which would be enacted by the federal government, then mirrored in the state legislation that harmonises consumer law across Australia."
Ms Gupta agrees that Australia's consumer protection laws have limitations.
In fact, their report also found that one in 10 Australians give up trying to cancel their subscription altogether, continuing to pay for unwanted services.
She would like to see laws in place that regulators would be able to enforce, such as those seen in the United States or under the European Union.
"In Australia, we have strong consumer protection laws, but ultimately what it covers us for is businesses can't lie to us and businesses can't do something extremely egregious, but there isn't really anything protecting us from somewhere in the middle. So those unfair practices are where the loophole is. And what you have now is a situation where you could be using the same service and the same platform run by the same business, but someone in Brussels has better protection than someone sitting in Brisbane."
As well as calling on the government to introduce an unfair trading prohibition before the next federal election, the report also calls upon banks to work with businesses to better protect customers from these subscription tactics.
"What we'd really like to see is banks and businesses working together where you could look up your subscriptions through a bank transaction and when you see there is one, you'd be able to cancel it straight from there. It's a way to make it as seamless as possible as it is to join, to leave."
