GENMSC-L Archives

Archiver > GENMSC > 2002-06 > 1024639971


From: Terry <>
Subject: Re: ancestry.com's policy and responsibility of the receiver of this service
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 02:12:51 -0400
References: <3d0952e5.11415351@news.monmouth.com>, <NDBBIEMOKPKPFPELHOOFMEMAKAAA.rfhouston@mindspring.com>


Well, Rhonda,

It's not the fine print. It's the attitude. I've been on the phone
with Ancestry every other day for the past week. Without going into a
long and drawn out story, the feeling I get from them is "Well, we got
your money and you can wait for it back."

Let me state this right up front. When I first joined Ancestry.com
they had an option where you could decide if you wanted to have your
subscription automatically renewed or not. I decided that I didn't
want that and unchecked that on my acocunt. So, now we come to Feb
2002. I get a phone call to ask if I wanted to renew. They didn't do
this out of any "gift'....they HAD to becuase their records showed
that I did NOT want to automatically authroize a renewal. So,
please...drop that weird idea.

Secondly, when the rep called to ask about renewing I told her that I
would not because I was unemployed and didn't have the fund for it.
SHE offered us a 4 month extension. I ASKED if we would be getting
another call in June asking if we would be renewing because I didn't
know how soon I would be able to get a new job. She said 'Yes', we
would recieve a phone call before it would be renewed.

Well, the customer rep created a NEW account because Ancestry.com was
not going to give people the option of no auto-renew and they didn't
want to keep my old account on file. To make a long story
short.....we've filed a fraud complaint about Ancestry.com's
practices. It took them less then 24 hrs to grab my money without my
authorization and after more then a week I still have not receive dit
back. Now the comment is that "everyone is doing it". It's not
ethical and there are a few consumer groups on the Internet that are
lobbying the US governemnt to not allow Internet business to use the
"We hope they forget" ploy. Where they will keepo robbing you until
you yell "Uncle".
We operate an online business and KNOW the following:
1. When we credit a customer, they recieve their funds within a 24
hour period.
2. We do NOT believe that it is ethical (by any stretch of the
imagination) to keep dipping into our cusotmer's accounts without
giving them a point in time where they can reaffirm their desire to
remain with the service.

Ancestry.com and many others on the Net have found a loophole in the
law that give them the right to steal money and be able to place the
blame on the victims.

As for myself, I will never give Ancestry.com my CC information ever
again. IF I ever use their service, I will do what another poster
said they did....send them a check.

Terry


On 13 Jun 2002 22:54:39 -0600, (Rhonda
Houston) wrote:

>I always thought the 'wise' purchaser always read the fine print BEFORE they
>signed on the dotted line or ask about what was expected of them as well as
>what could they expect at the end of the subscription time. This being
>agreed upon before a service was rendered...doesn't anyone anymore
>investigate what 'their' part of the AGREEMENT is BEFORE they agree to go
>along with the service that they desire?
>
>Remember, it is as important to know one's responsibilites as well as have
>the priviledge of the service. Also, that it takes two to agree as to what
>is involved which is usually discussed before the service begins, or another
>way of putting this, is that it is everyone's responsibility to know what
>their responsibility are concerning the service. It's important to know your
>rights, as well as one's responsibilities BEFORE one accepts to adhere to an
>agreement.
>
>This practice of Ancestry.com isn't unusual, but commonplace as for other
>businesses, so there shouldn't have been any horror involved. This 'phone
>call' experience should be looked upon as a "gift" because the service
>provider didn't have to call (which could be regarded as a 'warning' of
>things that are yet to take place) because this was what the buyer and
>seller supposedly had already agreed upon BEFORE the agreement concerning
>the beginning of the service began.
>
>Rhonda Houston

This thread: