Clever business model or scam?

[Kev11 (Kevin)]

Twice in the last month otherwise legitimate on-line businesses have attempted to rip me off. The trick is to offer a one-off service to be paid for by Paypal and then, having got your payment details, set up a continuing “subscription” to keep withdrawing the funds of the mug punter.
I keep a separate card attached to Paypal for on-line transactions and top it up before purchasing. However, I haven’t been meticulous in keeping the time between top-up and purchase minimal and I do keep an amount there for contingencies, parking meters and the like. No more!
As an ITC user of 50 years and as an accountant (retired) and small business owner this sort of “smart” retailing infuriates me. I am fairly sure it would breach Australian consumer law – these two are in the USA and UK. As they do not deal in astronomy items, I will not name them here.
Beware and keep safe.

[xelasnave]

Is there any department that goes after scammers?
I mean once if your house was broken into it was followed up but my impression is if you get scammed on the net it is too hard basket material.
I expect if one went to your local police station to report money stolen over the net they won't have any interest in finding criminals.
Alex

[Gary47 (Gary)]

The Police have limited financial resources despite what we are told about our governments commitment to law and order.
I had the drivers window ripped out of my car in my driveway by a petty thief.
The window was covered in tint film so despite the fact that the glass was shattered it stayed in one piece on the ground where it was dropped. Despite the fact that there was a clearly visible hand and finger prints on the film the police said they did not have the budget to get it checked.
I got into a conversation with the attending officer who told me that during a routine traffic stop he had found an illegal unlicensed fire arm.
He was unable to have the firearm tested and traced because of budget restrictions. It was months later by sheer co-incidence that the fire arm was linked to a crime in N.S.W.
If that is the state of play with crime prevention/detection how much luck do you think you are likely to have when it comes to finding or prosecuting an offender who is probably overseas.

[billdan (Bill)]

Its all about priorities.

A neighbour across the road was raided by a dozen police who also co-ordinated the media to attend. All of this for growing some weeds in his backyard. In the end he received a $350 fine and no conviction recorded.

[Zuts]

Originally Posted by billdan

Its all about priorities.

A neighbour across the road was raided by a dozen police who also co-ordinated the media to attend. All of this for growing some weeds in his backyard. In the end he received a $350 fine and no conviction recorded.

Cheap advertising on tv then .....

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by billdan

Its all about priorities.

A neighbour across the road was raided by a dozen police who also co-ordinated the media to attend. All of this for growing some weeds in his backyard. In the end he received a $350 fine and no conviction recorded.

It was like entering QLD prior to the easing of restrictions as we did. All that media frenzy, political bickering and puffing, and all that fear mongering for a ..."Drive on through sir"...

Wasn't even stopped once in QLD during our stay despite the obvious ACT number plates. And "social distancing" in QLD? Worse than the supposed "Social distancing" in the ACT, which doesn't exist. But I did notice a LOT more numpties in QLD driving their own cars with face masks on...ya know, you just might catch it from yourself...



And coming back into NSW all the way through to the ACT... did not even see a Police car ONCE. No stops checking if we came from Victoria...no nothing.


But there are still THOUSANDS of sheep...both 4 and 2 legged varieties.

[nsavage (Nick)]

This is a fairly common business model and typically it is noted in the service terms and conditions that it is an ongoing subscription and that the onus is on the purchaser to cancel the subscription. Plenty of companies do this including companies within Australia. Legally there is nothing wrong with doing it as long as it is identified in the terms and conditions.

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by nsavage

This is a fairly common business model and typically it is noted in the service terms and conditions that it is an ongoing subscription and that the onus is on the purchaser to cancel the subscription. Plenty of companies do this including companies within Australia. Legally there is nothing wrong with doing it as long as it is identified in the terms and conditions.

Absolutely. These work because practically no one reads the T&Cs.

My mother recently received a certain Telco service all because she didn’t read the T&Cs and did not uncheck the box (plain as day). As usual, just clicked through blissfully unaware. One call from me and it was resolved in 2 minutes

[Kev11 (Kevin)]

It is becoming a “common practice” for on-line retailers, but it is the revival of an old tactic called Inertia Selling used notably by Reader’s Digest and copied by others including banks (automatically renewing term deposits at a lower interest rate). It relied on the values of the older generation who didn’t question the honesty of business practises and paid up. With the rise of consumer interest groups in later generations, businesses in Australia (and apparently to some extent in the UK) have been obliged to introduce cooling-off periods, more explicit web pages etc. However, in my opinion it is still unethical and I was an accountant and small business adviser for many years. One of the businesses I complained about I have dealt with over 20 years so the tactic is certainly new with them. I do not accept the caveat emptor excuse (or as I call it the rapist’s defence: “She didn’t make absolutely clear she meant NO Your Honour so she must have meant YES”).