Why is the prosecution asking about irrelevant things like that? Why doesn't it continue like this:

Q: But eventually you cancelled the credit card?

A: Yes.

Q: Despite your contractual obligation to pay?

A: yes, but they made it impossible to can...

Judge: You must only answer the question.

In most cases, since these sorts of subscriptions are pre-paid (that is, you pay for the month of service at the beginning of the month, before the service has been rendered), you can truthfully answer "I had no contractual obligation to pay".

And no, the judge is not going to say "you must only answer the question" if you answer that way; "when did you stop beating your wife?" doesn't actually work in a court of law.

Regardless, even if you did have a contractual obligation to pay, but found it impossible to cancel (assuming you're allowed to cancel without penalty), you could pretty safely answer "Yes" to that last question, and then your own lawyer would then expose the whole impossible-to-cancel situation when it's their turn to question you. Court of law isn't this "haha, gotcha!" thing.

Correct.

If there's an issue about whether a question is admissible, the lawyers argue it. If the judge decides it is, they just say "Overruled; answer the question."

That's why your lawyer will tell you to look at them before answering.

Actually, the dialog would go like this:

Q: But eventually you cancelled the credit card?

A: Yes.

Q: Despite your contractual obligation to pay?

Defense counsel: Objection, your honor. Leading the witness.

Judge: sustained

Want to try again?

Watch fewer court shows please. This wouldn’t happen during a cross examination.

Usually at this point I believe the correct procedure is that someone shouts “I’m putting the whole system on trial” and then everyone is forced to acquiesce.

I've been to actual trials, and yes it does happen.

You're right about one thing, though; it's much briefer. All the lawyer says is "Objection. Leading." They do it so much that they don't waste words like on TV.

The defense gets to speak too. Court isn't a video game.

Contracts can be unconscionable or otherwise illegal.

The verdict is given by jury in US. No jury is going to find you guilty for cancelling credit card after trying to unsubscribe.

They will if you go into court and act like a smug asshole. Also, bench trials with only a judge are very much a thing in the US.

Not if you request a jury trial. A jury trial is a constitutional right under sixth amendment

Only for criminal cases. Not civil, which these cases could be.

I'm not saying that's wrong, but I know that many or most patent infringement cases are tried in front of a jury. There are no criminal charges in those.

So in at least some civil cases, one side can request a jury trial. I'm not sure in which ones.

Yes. A jury trial can always be requested by either side. However, it’s up to the judge (or appeals courts) if the request is granted. The high stakes ones (that you hear about on the news) tend to have the request granted. My point was that they are only guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment for criminal trials. My wording wasn’t particularly clear about that.

Shouldn’t it be more like “it was my understanding that going through the process that took place constitutes a lawful cancellation of the service provided” or something like that? “Yes, but I thought it’s okay” sounds like a bit self incriminating.

Defense lawyers get to ask questions too, you know. They also get to object.

> the prosecution drops the case

Agreed, someone would have to be egregious to attract prosecutorial attention. But for a civil judgement, using a temporary card with a fake name that is cancelled without notice (particularly if a discount was offered up front in exchange for commitment) is going to weigh in the plaintiff's favor. That, in turn, factors into e.g. credit agencies when considering taking such items off a report after the debt collector who bought it begins collections.

TL; DR This is a fine strategy. But try to cancel using the service's means. If they force you through loopholes, fire off an email and carry on. None of this is legal advice. But it does seem like the courteous thing to do.

At least in Europe, these sorts of dark patterns are very much illegal and I've never seen them in the wild (from Europe based businesses).

Prior to this year, German consumer contracts were even worse than American ones. Three years was the normal, with three month notice periods, limited cancellation windows, no prorated refunds, and just as many dark patterns.

Hadn't expected that from Germany! What changed? Here in NL the law requires that cancellation must always be possible through the same channels as signup, and I assumed this was due to a EU directive implemented everywhere.

I was flabbergasted that even NS (Dutch railway) tries this shit. I subscribed to one of their products through a simple webform, and to cancel I had to contact their webcare people in some kind of webchat. No thanks.

You're right! NS is the worst experience I've ever had. They also can't run trains worth a dime.

> Hadn't expected that from Germany! What changed?

I didn't see anything about EU compliance in the relevant news (and it was relatively big news for such a quotidian change). Possibly the number of people with useless gym etc. memberships after corona was the last straw - these were often 2-3y autorenewing contracts, for fairly large amounts.

I have sometimes seen shitty things from insurance companies. Such as: "Your insurance is renewing on August 1st and you need to send us a filled 3-page PDF to this address in order to cancel it 30 days prior"

My strategy: Fire off an email to whatever billing email is on there, say "I will not be renewing this insurance", and cancel the direct debit. They will try to charge, send a couple letters, and it's all safe to ignore because I've stated my intent to cancel in time.