Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Network Solutions Opts Customer Into $1,850 Security Service

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the enjoy-your-new-registrar dept.

Businesses 405

An anonymous reader writes "Brent Simmons has posted about a troubling email he received from Network Solutions. He registered two domains with them in the 1990s, and the domains remain registered today. Simmons just received an email informing him that he'd been opted into some kind of security service called Weblock, and that he would be billed $1,850 for the first year. Further, he would be billed $1,350 for every year after the first. Believing it to be a scam, he contacted the official Network Solutions account on Twitter. They said it was real. The email even said he couldn't opt out except by making a phone call."

cancel ×

405 comments

This is what libertarians think (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031525)

Free market, bitches! Suck it you socialist faggots!

Free market means exactly that ! (5, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 6 months ago | (#46031615)

Free market, bitches! Suck it you socialist faggots!

Free market means exactly that - if the vendors do something despicable the customers stop doing business with them and choose other vendors who won't do similarly despicable things to them.

Re:Free market means exactly that ! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031685)

So the free market is being able to defraud people of money and the only consequence is to "lose their business"? Jesus you libertarians are dumber than I thought.

Re:Free market means exactly that ! (3, Funny)

dfsmith (960400) | about 6 months ago | (#46031739)

Are you saying that a company should be unable to shed customers it doesn't want? Your way smells faintly of Marxism to me. B-)

Re:Free market means exactly that ! (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 6 months ago | (#46031773)

Well that's an awful poor interpretation of what the AC wrote.

Re:Free market means exactly that ! (4, Insightful)

Anita Coney (648748) | about 6 months ago | (#46032063)

Exactly what does enrolling a customer into an unwanted and ridiculously overpriced service has to do with shedding customers?! If the contract is over. Shed the customer. If the contract is not over. Keep up your end of the contract.

Re:Free market means exactly that ! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031919)

No, that's why fraud is a crime.

Re:Free market means exactly that ! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032029)

It's Taco Cowboy. He's a Space Nutter, among other mental defects. Ignore him.

Re:Free market means exactly that ! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031877)

Free market, bitches! Suck it you socialist faggots!

Free market means exactly that - if the vendors do something despicable the customers stop doing business with them and choose other vendors who won't do similarly despicable things to them.

Exactly. Like, if I don't like Comcast I can just switch to... uh...

Re:Free market means exactly that ! (5, Funny)

bob_super (3391281) | about 6 months ago | (#46031987)

You are free to start your own provider, and dig your own trench to the nearest CO.
You are free to be off the web, too, or use dial-up into another state.

Free market doesn't prevent abusive monopolies, as long as they only abuse their customers and not their symbolic competitors.

Comcast, government enforced monopoly == (!market) (1, Informative)

raymorris (2726007) | about 6 months ago | (#46032117)

Comcast (in most areas) is a government enforced monopoly. That's precisely the opposite of free market.

On the other hand, I pay $30 / month for unlimited everything, no contract, on my cell phone because that's a free market -
if Boost Mobile annoys me, I can switch to Virgin mobile ($35 no contract), Walmart Family mobile ($35 no contract), T-Mobile, Cricket, Sprint,AT&T, Metro PCS, etc. etc.

"Cable is a natural monopoly", some people say. It is, in precisely the same way that phone service is. It's "inefficient" to have redundant towers owned by different companies.
Yet, that's how you get consumer choice. "The government should own the cables and companies provide customer service", some say. Funny, that's almost exactly what happens in the free market, except without the government bureaucracy, and with actual competition. US wireless service has a couple of networks using competing technology, and many competing companies providing service over those networks. For example, I liked Sprint's network, but not their policies and attitude. With Boost, I can have the same Sprint network, but without the annoying nickel-and-dime policies, or service contracts. If I didn't like Boost's service, some Walmart Family Mobile phones also run on the same network. If I'd prefer a different network, several providers offer service on a different network.

That's the difference between a regulated monopoly (you can choose Comcast or Comcast) and unregulated competition (a dozen phone companies to choose from).

Re:Comcast, government enforced monopoly == (!mark (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032169)

Then eventually one of those dozen or so phone companies buy a competitor... then a couple more... and you end up with an actual monopoly, because that's the best way to maximize your profits! the clients win, because they don't need to shop around, this is the best option ever!

Re:Comcast, government enforced monopoly == (!mark (4, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | about 6 months ago | (#46032207)

The real solution for the "natural monopoly" is to have the infrastructure owned by the government, and providers buy service from there. It works great for mobile service in Europe (or did, until privatization took hold, and the assets were sold off below market, and the profits were lost and service got worse.

Re:Free market means exactly that ! (5, Insightful)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 6 months ago | (#46031889)

In a truly free market, the domain problem does not arise, because internet have not been created. What you have is a myriad of proprietary networks instead.

Re:Free market means exactly that ! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032011)

Is your truly free market created by a true Scotsman?

Re:Free market means exactly that ! (5, Informative)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | about 6 months ago | (#46032103)

Adam Smith himself wrote about the need to put legal limits on unethical business practices.

Re:Free market means exactly that ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032187)

Free Market means it's free for the companies because we'll be paying through the nose.

Re:Free market means exactly that ! (5, Insightful)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 6 months ago | (#46032323)

Network Solutions has to operate within their role as a bleeding legacy domain name provider.

To anyone reading this who doesn't know, they used to be the sole provider of domain names in the world.

Most of their remaining clients are very large businesses who don't care if their domain renewal is $6 bucks or $35 bucks or $500 bucks.

They have to fight to survive in a way compatible with their mainstream client base --- big inept companies that didn't switch to a cheaper provider a decade ago like Godaddy or [insert your favorite low cost provider here].

Network Solutions has a client base similar to a company running COBOL or with mostly government agencies as clients. Sure their business practices suck, but they are little different than other legacy service providers --- you might ask why the blogger of the article has been overpaying for domain names for 15 years? He probably has flushed $700+ dollars down the toilet compared to what he could have saved with another domain registrar ages ago. But he didn't, he's been volunteering overpaying for quite a while now and that is your average "still with Network Solutions" customer. Network Solutions has been doing this for a decade now through inertia and now for survival. This doesn't make Network Solutions innocent -- they aren't --- but their customer base does consist of people largely willing to overpay, which is largely big faceless corporations --- I bet Blackberry prices gouges captive legacy clients and I bet so does IBM, EDS and Accenture and even Microsoft. It is just what happens to legacy service provider's customers.

This fellow should have switch a dozen years back if he was price shopping the market.

Re:This is what libertarians think (2, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#46031735)

In a truly free market, customers roped in this way would be free to simply not pay, tell the vendor to go to hell, and take his property (the domains) elsewhere.

Re:This is what libertarians think (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031801)

And an even dumber libertarian pops up. No, actually it's because of fraud laws that such things get struck down. In a "free market" you'd have no recourse when you get sent to collections and your credit score goes in the toilet.

Re:This is what libertarians think (5, Funny)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about 6 months ago | (#46031871)

In a free market there is no fraud.

Re: This is what libertarians think (1)

mexsudo (2905137) | about 6 months ago | (#46031887)

Silly boy, pay cash...no worries

Re:This is what libertarians think (2)

TheGavster (774657) | about 6 months ago | (#46031915)

A free market for credit reporting agencies would select for those agencies which best differentiate between real and fraudulent claims :)

Re:This is what libertarians think (4, Insightful)

professionalfurryele (877225) | about 6 months ago | (#46032025)

Credit reporting agencies aren't about reporting credit, they are gangs who job it is to record which of the peons isn't being compliant.

speechless (4, Insightful)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about 6 months ago | (#46031539)

Wow I am just utterly speechless...that a site could stay up for that long!

Re:speechless (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 6 months ago | (#46031729)

Nothing Network Hell could do would surprise me. If it was revealed their sales staff ate human body parts and molested captive giant squid, I'd just go "Why are you all surprised?"

Re:speechless (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 6 months ago | (#46031757)

Molesting captive giant squid?

Just goes to show you that any thread can get hit with Rule 34.

Re:speechless (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031879)

Molesting captive giant squid?

Just goes to show you that any thread can get hit with Rule 34.

Wait. That isn't normal?

Re:speechless (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031929)

Molesting captive giant squid?

Just goes to show you that any thread can get hit with Rule 34.

Wait. That isn't normal?

I see how this might be confusing. In anime the squid molests the people. The tables are turned in this episode of Netwaste Solutions. Can't wait for teh 3D version so I can finally see that squid get his.

Re:speechless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031933)

+1 japanese

This is the biggest news since (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031543)

The continued production of sliced bread

Re:This is the biggest news since (1)

unrtst (777550) | about 6 months ago | (#46032081)

The end of the story is *even better*... he calls them, and all is fine now!

Call a Lawyer (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031547)

Don't pay. When they try to do anything about it, sue.

Re: Call a Lawyer (1)

mexsudo (2905137) | about 6 months ago | (#46031635)

Tell your bank to not honor any charges from Network Solutions.. No lawyer needed

Re: Call a Lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031675)

When they take down your sites, you've got no recourse.

Re: Call a Lawyer (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 6 months ago | (#46031711)

Then they'll send you to a collections agent and have that appear on your credit report.

Re: Call a Lawyer (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 6 months ago | (#46031767)

"Then they'll send you to a collections agent and have that appear on your credit report."

They'd better not. Unauthorized charges to cards are pretty damned illegal. In fact, I think that amount would qualify as felony fraud. Grand Larceny. (Hell, it should anyway. Sounds like larceny to me.)

Re: Call a Lawyer (5, Interesting)

whoever57 (658626) | about 6 months ago | (#46031867)

Unauthorized charges to cards are pretty damned illegal.

Are you sure that the charges are unauthorized? What's in Network Solutions customer agreements? There might be some very small print that allows NetSol to add security services and charge for them.

I just scanned the agreement and could not find anything that would allow NetSol to add products without authorization, but then I am not a lawyer.

Re: Call a Lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032141)

Are you sure that the charges are unauthorized? What's in Network Solutions customer agreements? There might be some very small print that allows NetSol to add security services and charge for them.

By reading this post, you are agreeing to my charging you $1000. Please provide CC info here: ___________

Re: Call a Lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032191)

Tell your bank to not honor any charges from Network Solutions.. No lawyer needed

Don't waste your time being jerked around with their snickering song and dance and scripted routines, just find out where anyone of their employees live, even the minimum wage support, and have fun being a criminal to them or their families. Just be sure it's a hadcore crime where they're unable to do anything again. *snicker*

Illegal. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031595)

So, I don't know about you, but this is straight up criminal behavior where I live.

Not shady, questionable, or dirty. Criminal.

In addition to ceasing business with this company I'd inform your credit card company. If you don't end up needing to dispute the charge, I bet lots of other people will be.

Re:Illegal. (1, Insightful)

M. Baranczak (726671) | about 6 months ago | (#46031853)

Completely illegal, there's not even any question. Which indicates to me that this story's bogus. When a giant corporation tries to fuck its customers, they tend to be a little more subtle about it.

NWS -- more info (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032051)

A couple years back, Network Solutions "opted me in" for automatic payment of all my domains via credit (debit) card. I didn't want this, as I don't habitually keep enough money in the account to cover random charges; I put in what's needed, when needed, and that's how I like to roll. There's an opt-out checkmark; but it doesn't work. You have to call and it tells you so. Then when you call, they say "oh, hey, for some reason this isn't working..." So since I couldn't turn it off, I just changed to an expired card. Then I get panicked form emails about how it won't charge, and I pay by paypal. That worked last year. THIS year, though, what happens is that the Paypal charge is now automatic -- by paying once, you're opting in (without recourse of course) to paying them via paypal automatically forever. I found that once you paid, Paypal (not Network Solutions, but Paypal) has a way to disable the "agreement" and get you back to payment only when you authorize it. Takes some menu mining, but it's there. Or at least it was a few months ago.

The only reason I continue to use Network Solutions is because over the years (and yes, some of my domains have been up since the 90's as well) I've watched other name registering outfits come and go, seen various name server problems, etc., and for all their horrifying business practices and high prices, my sites seem to always work, which is what I place the most emphasis on.

Interesting note: When the above happened, I submitted the story to slashdot. Initially, it got high ratings, and I thought for sure it would post. Then it disappeared. I mean literally -- I could no longer find it in the submissions cue. It disappeared from my profile, too. Older and newer submissions remain. I have no idea what that means, but I thought it was weird. No other story I have submitted has disappeared like that.

Re:Illegal. (1)

Cramer (69040) | about 6 months ago | (#46032075)

Have you ever met Network Solution? Screwing their customers is ALL THEY DO.

Re:Illegal. (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 6 months ago | (#46032279)

Network Solutions is a web.com company that is based in USA, in Florida. I know for Damn sure this illegal as hell what they are trying to do. Its 100% for sure against the law to add a service like this to your account and then charge you like that.

Opt them in to a service (1)

Mistakill (965922) | about 6 months ago | (#46031611)

$2000 a month should get their attention, require a phone call and 1 months notice of termination, and a $2000 early termination fee

Re:Opt them in to a service (4, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | about 6 months ago | (#46032243)

Chances are, if you send them a properly formatted invoice for toner, they'll pay it (most companies do). See how much you can get before someone notices. It's no less fair than what they do. Just make sure you have a payment EULA that authorizes the charges.

I can't find this feature (3, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#46031621)

anywhere else but in this persons claim.

Re:I can't find this feature (2)

pudding7 (584715) | about 6 months ago | (#46031771)

Neither could I. Just logged into my account with them to see if there was anything about it. There was not.

Re:I can't find this feature (5, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 6 months ago | (#46031847)

I googled network solutions "weblock" and got their service agreement [networksolutions.com] which refers to a service by that name.

Re:I can't find this feature (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031957)

I googled network solutions "weblock" and got their service agreement [networksolutions.com] which refers to a service by that name.

From the ToS:

Although WebLock shall provide for additional domain protection, you acknowledge and agree that the Service is not a guarantee or policy of insurance of any kind, and in no way will the use of or enrollment in the WebLock Service diminish or otherwise alter the other sections of this Agreement, including but not limited to, Section 7 (Exclusive Remedy) and Section 8 (Disclaimers of Warranties) above, which shall continue in full force and effect.

Re:I can't find this feature (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031991)

I googled network solutions "weblock" and got their service agreement [networksolutions.com] which refers to a service by that name.

From the ToS:

Although WebLock shall provide for additional domain protection, you acknowledge and agree that the Service is not a guarantee or policy of insurance of any kind, and in no way will the use of or enrollment in the WebLock Service diminish or otherwise alter the other sections of this Agreement, including but not limited to, Section 7 (Exclusive Remedy) and Section 8 (Disclaimers of Warranties) above, which shall continue in full force and effect.

Can't be the only one here wondering...For $1850, just exactly what in the fuck are you getting then...

Re:I can't find this feature (2)

Jawcracker Fuzz (1773468) | about 6 months ago | (#46032017)

They promise not to fuck your website up on purpose?

Re:I can't find this feature (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032033)

Unless he specifically selects the three domains to be covered he gets nothing for his money anyway:

The Service and related Service fee shall cover up to three (3) eligible domain names that you have registered with Network Solutions, whereby such eligible domains include .com, .net. .tv, .cc and .name domain names. However, during the onboarding process for the Service you must specifically identify the eligible domain names within your account that are to be covered by the Service. Any domain names not identified, even if eligible and registered with Network Solutions shall not be covered under the Service. The Service shall require a one-time set-up fee and a recurring annual fee billed in advance each year.

If the feature doesn't exist... (2)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 6 months ago | (#46031945)

If the feature doesn't exist (which it probably does, considering a co-commenter noted the name is at least used in one of their official documents), then it merely turns into a story of network solutions' official twitter account (as pointed to from network solutions' website) stating that a document that would be completely false, is in fact completely authentic, and make it rather strange that they would tell the guy to contact them directly so that they could explain.

I'd love to read the explanation, regardless.

Re:I can't find this feature (4, Informative)

celest (100606) | about 6 months ago | (#46032295)

If you enable replies on the Network Solutions' Twitter feed, you can see them responding to the flurry of crap they got from this. They mention that the email is the "first step".

Seems real: https://twitter.com/netsolcare... [twitter.com]

Not exactly new (2)

Xeno man (1614779) | about 6 months ago | (#46031627)

People have tried forcing people to buy their services before but you can't charge for a service someone didn't ask for. Well you can try but there is no legal power behind it. Things must be getting desperate over there.

Re:Not exactly new (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031659)

FALSE. Implied opt-in is a valid way to incur a debt, and this has been litigated on many times. It is just like EULA/TOS lawsuits... there has yet to be a single case that has actually weakened or gone against a EULA in the US, in all the entire civil court system.

First year law school stuff.

Re:Not exactly new (0, Troll)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#46031763)

Considering that lawyers like yourself have moved the law out beyond the understanding of most people, maybe it's time that lawyers burned every time some joe gets burned like this.

Re:Not exactly new (2)

n1ywb (555767) | about 6 months ago | (#46032019)

Since when do lawyers make the law?

Re:Not exactly new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032099)

since 43 % of congressmen are lawyers

Re:Not exactly new (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032175)

Since when do lawyers make the law?

Aside from the obvious answer that a significant number of professional politicians are also Lawyers?

Every time a Lawyer stands up in court and argues he shapes the law. What does the text mean? Here's a loophole. This isn't actually a crime under this statute because no oxford comma means its only a crime to do X and Y together, not either of them. The list goes on.

Re:Not exactly new (4, Informative)

Rick Zeman (15628) | about 6 months ago | (#46032177)

Since when do lawyers make the law?

Pretty much since the 20th century. The law schools shit out lawyers and they end up in Congress. 60 Senators and 170 House members (last stats I could find) making up 43% of Congress. Largest representation of any profession, and that's not even looking at state governments.

Re:Not exactly new (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032073)

Law is the software of civilization. "Most people" are end users, rather than devs.
–CJC15153

Re: Not exactly new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031859)

Whoa there gunner...you'll learn about "unfair and deceptive business practices" as a 2L. Don't make the mistake of thinking you know anything just yet.

Re:Not exactly new (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031869)

If you think this falls within the EULA/TOS precedents, you obviously weren't paying attention in (or are still taking) your first year contracts course.

This is clearly an attempt to foist terms completely outside and beyond the scope of the original contract of sale onto the user, and the alleged new terms stray far into the territory of unconscionability without the formation of a new and independent contract.

There are also major problems with the extent and quality of notice given (a single email to an email account that may or may not be monitored?) and questions as to whether the "Head of Security" of Network Solutions has the authority (legal or corporate) to effectuate this contract on behalf of the company.

Re: Not exactly new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031973)

What are 1000 dead lawyers? Good beginning, yet not enough by far.

Re: Not exactly new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032123)

What are 1000 dead lawyers? Good beginning, yet not enough by far.

Oh, I'm sorry, AC. The answer we were looking for was 'kindling'. 'kindling'. That will cost you $800. Your board, pick another clue.

Re:Not exactly new (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032095)

It is just like EULA/TOS lawsuits... there has yet to be a single case that has actually weakened or gone against a EULA in the US, in all the entire civil court system.

That's provably untrue.

Step-Saver Data Systems [wikipedia.org]
Vault Corp. [wikipedia.org]

(Note: Don't use Wikipedia for legal knowledge of any sort. It's terrible.)

This'll teach 'em a lesson (5, Funny)

TheloniousToady (3343045) | about 6 months ago | (#46031645)

Call collect.

Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031655)

way to lose customers. Unfortunately I fear these criminal tactics will earn them quite a bit of revenue nonetheless. I can imagine the rates on that phone number you need to call is ridiculous, or that there's no way to transfer a domain in under 2 weeks unless you pay extra, or some other genuinely American business practice like that.

Ewww. (5, Insightful)

Marrow (195242) | about 6 months ago | (#46031657)

Their letter says they want to charge him that much for adding security to -their- website. To prevent changes to their data. It doesn't add any value to his service at all. Just theirs. How do people live with themselves.

Re:Ewww. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031701)

Reminds me of what a purchasing manager said to me when I worked as an IT manager: "You seem like a nice guy, so why are you in the computer business?"

Chargeback (3, Informative)

s7uar7 (746699) | about 6 months ago | (#46031667)

Businesses hate chargebacks, they cost them money. If you're ever in dispute about a credit card charge and you've given a company a fair chance to resolve it just call your credit card provider and dispute the charge.

Re:Chargeback (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031917)

I've never used it, and had never even heard about it until my sister ran into problems with this small time driving school.

They essentially charged her twice by accident. Mistakes happen, but she was having a hell of a time getting them to fix it. My suspicion is given their size they probably already spent the money.. but they could have come clean with that and tried to work something out rather than dodging calls and having other people answer the phone with "I'm not familiar with this situation, but I'll get someone to call you back". She thinks at one point she was actually talking to a kid.

It got resolved when she basically told them she was obviously getting nowhere with them and was going to go to her bank for a chargeback. They suddenly found the means to refund the money (probably double charged someone else...).

Netsol ran out of evil points (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031713)

So they made some shit up to regain them.

What else could it be? A wager with verisign to see who could be worse towards their customers and get away with it?

Re:Netsol ran out of evil points (3, Informative)

game kid (805301) | about 6 months ago | (#46032205)

Footer fortune atm: "And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs

Par for the course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031715)

This type of thing is very prototypical for Network Solutions; what do expect from a company where every third and fourth word out their mouths is: "UP SELL!!"

UP SELL!!
UP SELL!!

They're just removing the middle man by requiring that the customer actually opt-in first. :D

I'm dumbfounded (2)

troll -1 (956834) | about 6 months ago | (#46031723)

Contact your credit card company and dispute the item. I've heard rumored that credit card companies tend to take the customer's side as a form of insurance against losing a customer.

Re:I'm dumbfounded (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031841)

Except for: plane tickets, hotels, rental cars

A dispute is automatically put in the card holders favour and the merchant is notified.
I believe they have 60 days to show proof of customer agreeing to charge.
Customer then has 60 days to dispute proof of charge given by merchant (fake signature, proof they weren't in city, etc).
Then it goes to arbitration.

Without a signature on a contract approving charge, it will go to first step and end. Simple! And Free Market driven.

Re:I'm dumbfounded (1)

ADRA (37398) | about 6 months ago | (#46032267)

Not sure about your experience, but someone frauded my card for an airline ticket, I challenged it, and the Visa/bank? operator said the purchase was made online without a CVV number and I never heard back about it. Probably if there's insufficient information for proper verification (like CVV/PIN/password entry for web purchases as an example) VISA/MC will side with consumer and business will eat the charge.

Re:I'm dumbfounded (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 6 months ago | (#46032299)

Even if the cahrge is approved, if the seller can't prove the buyer took posession, the buyer will win (had an ebay issue where the seller claimed he sent it and I didn't pay his "insurance" fee so it was lost). I approved the charge, but I didn't take possession of the purchased item, so the reverse was upheld.

Re:I'm dumbfounded (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032231)

Why would they even have your valid CC or bank numbers to charge you? If you only renew the domain name once a year or more, just give them a one time use CC number to renew and then generate a new one every year or more. It only takes a few minutes to generate one and update your profile. I have monthly bills I pay via a new one time CC number every month.

Double yew tee eff. (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 6 months ago | (#46031737)

Apparently NetworkSolutions is going to die soon. Sell Network Solutions. Sell sell sell!!!

It's not illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031761)

Based on my reading it seems that they were merely outlining a new set of terms and conditions. Going forward, if you want to continue doing business with us, you'll have to either pay this amount for this new service of ours, or you'll have to call the phone number of our security team. By continuing to be our customer you accept these terms.

Many companies operate based on the above logic. By using their service, you're accepting their terms and conditions, whether you explicitly agreed to a contract or not. Often it is the case that a company reserves for itself the right to change their terms at any time.

In my opinion, it would be worthy of a lawsuit by the customer if the company had claimed that the customer retroactively accepted a service without ever having been able to learn about it.

Re:It's not illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031825)

Re:It's not illegal (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 6 months ago | (#46032203)

Does that actually apply to any non-telco service provider?

Then switch companies? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031799)

Rather then deal with them, I would rather switch companies that handles the domain. Go with one that's won't try to do such a dickish move with billing. I personally prefer namecheap but I'm sure there are few good other ones, at least to the point where they won't auto opt in random crap for you. Of course, YMMV as this is the first I've heard of a registrar trying to pull this shit (heard plently of other annoying stuff though like crappy sign ups trying to make you opt into more things by making it unclear)

Do this in Australia.. I dare you... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031845)

ACC in Australia would have a field day emptying this company's coffers with violation after violation...

Easy Solution (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031875)

Probably the best way to deal with scams like this is have your attorney send them an official (registered) letter stating that the service was not asked for and any attempt to charge the credit card will be considered fraud, theft, and will be prosecuted as such.

Re:Easy Solution (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032121)

And then you pay 400$ bucks to your lawyer for the service.

Really, you still loose.

Just don't do busines with crap companies like netsol and avoid the situation altogether.

Did he misread the email? (3, Informative)

tomhath (637240) | about 6 months ago | (#46031909)

FTFA:

We strongly encourage you to take advantage of this security program and register Certified Users before the program launch date...your credit card will be billed $1,850 for the first year of service on the date your program goes live

The email implies it's an opt out but, it's not clear to me that he'll actually be billed until he sets up the enhanced security. Regardless, I've avoided Network Solutions for a long, long time and would never consider doing business with them.

Re: Did he misread the email? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46031999)

It always ends this way. 1 freakin guy reads the article, and spoils it for the rest of us!

Re:Did he misread the email? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032147)

The email implies it's an opt out but, it's not clear to me that he'll actually be billed until he sets up the enhanced security.

When I first read the article I thought so too. But, actually, it tells him that he will be enrolled:

Starting 9:00 AM EST on 2/4/2014 all of your domains will be protected via our WebLock Program.

...

If you wish to opt out of this program you may do so by calling us at 1-888-642-0265.

another blogger making money off /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032047)

Suckers, just another worthless blogger baiting /. tards for hits. Wonder if he added additional advertising before posting this?

These guys... (4, Informative)

Ozeroc (1146595) | about 6 months ago | (#46032087)

Yeah, I recently had two domains I was planning on letting expire get auto renewed for 5 years for a total of ~$380. I went to check and they were set for auto renewal (I don't remember requesting that.) When I went to turn auto renewal off it stated that I had to call. It was a big PITA but after 20-30 minutes talking to the nice guy in India (naturally) I had my money back and auto renewal turned off. They're hoping people are unattentive. Not too cool.

Re:These guys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46032281)

... They're hoping people are unattentive.

Hidden costs like this are illegal in my country. The price has to be in the small print and not substantially change the pricing plan. One trick round this was "First month free". Small print: "Joining fee is charged before second month of service."

Didn't happen to me (1)

Rick Zeman (15628) | about 6 months ago | (#46032263)

I just logged into my NetSol account for my two domains, and aside from the totally skeevy auto-renew forced on, and only removable with a phone call, I saw no trace of this.

Illegal in Canada (4, Informative)

celest (100606) | about 6 months ago | (#46032283)

It's worth noting that this action (auto-enroll and bill) is illegal in Canada. Each province/territory has its own consumer protection act that requires explicit opt-in for any new services that are provided to existing customers, in writing. You cannot auto-enroll people and require them to opt-out to not be charged.

Source (for Ontario, at least): http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ht... [gov.on.ca]

Non-legalese summary provided by the Ministry of Consumer Services of Ontario: http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/e... [gov.on.ca]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...