A while back, I sighed up for surfshark with the intention to refund my subscription soon after. I just needed it to access some information I thought was region lock. After I was finished I sent an email to surfshark asking for a refund.
I then received an email that I thought was a confirmation that I would be refined.
However, recently I got an email that my subscription could not be auto-renewed because my account lacked funds (I'm a broke college student).
Their reason for not canceling my account was that they actually wanted another confirmation that I wanted to get a refund.
Is this my fault for not checking back in? I thought it was clear that I didn't want to stay with surfshark.
Refunds are intended to never be used. That this consumer fulfilled the letter of the agreement that the business would be happy to wield against them does not at all make them an asshole.
still scummy though. i'm not going to go into the morals of whether social contracts should apply with businesses, but put it this way: if enough people did this, businesses would stop offering refunds; which would screw over those with genuine issues
I will. Businesses ARE screwing over people, and they do so by using scummy terms and conditions that are one sided at best, like the one used by Wireshark. In a just world, one more fair to consumers, wire shark wouldn’t have arbitration agreements locked into their TOU, but here we are. In a just world, one more fair to consumers, there would be a no questions asked return process as a legal right for any online service. But here we are. I guarantee you the OP is not being abusive to the business by trying to get a refund during the 15 day return period. They’ll be just fine.
i feel like you've missed my point. unless you either have a bloody revolution or go corp-free, you're not going to win this one. the corporations will notice people doing this and either remove the refund window or raise the prices. they won't just go "ah well, that seems fair, we've earned enough money". you can justly rage against the machine all you like; you're just going to make the experience worse for everyone.
yes they would. that's the point of contracts. it's up to you to read the terms of use before you agree to use the service. i'm not going to say the current system is fair to consumers; but the issue isn't the existence of contracts.
this is dumb. corporations might be earning too much money in your opinion, but demanding that they give away their services is the same problem in the other direction. op used the service, he should pay for it. this is how transactions work.
i'm not going to argue this. arguing on the internet makes me tired (i hope i got this energy across in this comment)
My dude I am an attorney that has written these contracts. You aren’t getting it. That’s fine. It certainly doesn’t take a bloody revolution to get better consumer protections and it absolutely isn’t scummy to exploit the terms of the contract to the fullest extent allowable under the contract — as the OP has — as a consumer. This contract has already been written by the business to benefit them to the furthest extent they think they could get away with and they will be more than happy to use it for their benefit as much as is allowed. This is how this works.