Network Solutions Opts Customer Into $1,850 Security Service 405
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the enjoy-your-new-registrar dept.
from the enjoy-your-new-registrar dept.
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."
speechless (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow I am just utterly speechless...that a site could stay up for that long!
Re:speechless (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Molesting captive giant squid?
Just goes to show you that any thread can get hit with Rule 34.
Re:speechless (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Illegal. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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:NWS -- more info (Score:5, Informative)
Only put money on the card when you need to pay a bill, never link it to a bank account/credit card.
Since the card isn't linked to a bank account, there is no automatic charge mechanism that will work.
Re: (Score:3)
"Are you sure, Joe? Won't people cancel service and switch to a competitor?"
"Sure. Some will. But there's a certain number of them who are too apathetic to get off their butts and do anything. Those are our REAL customers."
See also: AOL [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Illegal. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, bullshit. I bet you use a half a dozen services that quite legally reserve the right to change the terms, give you notice, and interpret your continuing to use the service as acceptance.
Doesn't make it right, just legal.
Re:Illegal. (Score:5, Informative)
The number listed was posted on Network Solutions' official Twitter account, the same account which explicitly said that the email is real. It really is their official Twitter account; their website links to it, and checking archive.org reveals that their website has linked to it for quite some time.
Web.com (Network Solutions' parent company) has also responded in other ways, confirming this story. For example, see http://domainnamewire.com/2014... [domainnamewire.com] .
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Opt them in to a service (Score:2)
Re:Opt them in to a service (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't find this feature (Score:3, Informative)
anywhere else but in this persons claim.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
From what I read elsewhere, it's only aimed at the top 1% of their domains (insert your own joke about wealth inequality here), with the other 99% being left alone for now.
Re:I can't find this feature (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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... (Score:3)
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, re
Re:I can't find this feature (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re: (Score:3)
I can't be the first one to think this - TWITTER IS THE WORST FORUM FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE EVER INVENTED!
But on the other hand, one of the best forums for public shaming. The problem is when the naive/moronic company employee with access to their Twitter account actually responds to ANYTHING...
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that every company that does any amount of business and has online feedback will be reamed out by at least a handful of people. And then there's the classic "5 star rating system? So that means 5 if it works and 0 if there's anything wrong with it at all!" bit, too.
Comparative shopping online in terms of quality doesn't work when you have a decent number of big companies. At least, that's my experience; YMMV.
Re:I can't find this feature (Score:4, Informative)
Network Solutions claims it is real.
Re: (Score:3)
So you allege that Network Solutions official twitter account is hacked? Or that someone hacked twitter to fake the message?
Not impossible, but some evidence would be nice.
I don't believe the first tweet I see. I followed it back to the sender's page on twitter which has been around for some time and claims to represent networksolutions.com. It mostly advertises web.com.
Had it been @ISAYDUMBSTUFF instead, I wouldn't have given it any credence at all.
Not exactly new (Score:3)
Re:Not exactly new (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
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.)
Re: (Score:3)
It is split, but Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology and Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. went against the EULAs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not exactly new (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Since everyone else is ignoring it, I'll mention the laws written by corporate legal departments and passed to their tame legislators to introduce without anyone outside the corporations legal staff bothering to read them.
I don't claim the majority of the laws happen that way, but many of the very worst have. Including some that didn't pass, but had to be fought, draining time and energy away from useful activities.
OTOH, there do exist decent lawyers. There even exist several that are worthy of praise. B
This'll teach 'em a lesson (Score:5, Funny)
Call collect.
Ewww. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Chargeback (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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'
I'm dumbfounded (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Double yew tee eff. (Score:2)
Did he misread the email? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
These guys... (Score:5, Informative)
Didn't happen to me (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Illegal. (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure it is illegal. Would love to see the contract.
File a complant with ICANN (Score:3)
ICANN has rules for how accredited registrar must handle such things. They could be fined or have there accrediation pulled.
Dear Network Solutions (Score:4, Informative)
Run away! (Score:5, Informative)
I am currently in the process of moving over 100 domains away from NetSol to Hover. I'd used NetSol since I started getting domains in the 90s, but it has changed from a trusted institution on the web into a scam. Everything is an up sell, and everything is designed to confuse you into buying things you don't need. One personal example. Last year I set up a client on a basic WordPress account, but later wanted to move the domain. They would not let us access the .db file until we upgraded the account. They wouldn't give us our own data!
So now I am going to through the multi-stage process of moving all these domains, waiting days for each authorization code. These guys are crooks, so stay the fuck away from ever doing business with them. And if you have domains there, run away!!!
Free market means exactly that ! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Well that's an awful poor interpretation of what the AC wrote.
Re:Free market means exactly that ! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Contracts are for the little people to keep up. Companies shouldn't be bothered with such trivialities especially when they cut into profit.
Re: (Score:3)
Contracts are for the little people to keep up.Companies shouldn't be bothered with such trivialities especially when they cut into profit.
That's a capitalist/corporist/fascist viewpoint though, not a libertarian one though. To libertarians, contracts agreed upon by consenting informed adults are king.
No, an email that says 'Call X or we'll charge you' is NOT informing, and a failure to respond is NOT consent. In my lolbertopia Network Solutions would be fined huge bins of money for this.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless of course they stated that they could do that, somewhere in the 300 pages of fine print that you have to sign to get service from anyone these days if you are an individual or small business. Then it's completely OK in your libertarian world. You read every word of every one of those, right?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Most contracts have termination clauses. If they really wanted to shed a customer, they can just say "I'm sorry, we don't want to be your supplier any more" (and potentially pay a small penalty fee, if the contract says so).
Opting someone in to a paid-for service just seems to be inviting credit card chargebacks (and probably the loss of their merchant account). Furthermore, emailing people to tell them you've opted them in seems particularly unsafe since there's no way to know if that email address is st
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Free market means exactly that ! (Score:5, Interesting)
Fraud would be charging without notice, and without offering an opt-out.
This isn't fraud, it's just a bad marketing strategy. It's also unlikely to work, since a lot of people will likely call their credit card companies and say "I didn't agree to that - reverse the charges."
Re:Free market means exactly that ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Over here in Europe, it's definitely fraud. A contract is not opt out, it's opt in.
Re:Free market means exactly that ! (Score:5, Funny)
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 ! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
You are free to start your own provider, and dig your own trench to the nearest CO.
Right, because I have a few billion dollars laying arund with which to challenge one of the largest companies in the world.
And because I'm actually legally allowed to use the wires already in and leading to the house....oh wait, I'm not. And I'm not allowed to lay new ones.
You know, there's a place where they have competition over telcos, and they did it by telling them they cant block competition from the wires. And they have both competition, better service, and better prices....through regulation. Imagin
Re:Free market means exactly that ! (Score:5, Funny)
I am _not_ free to go around digging trenches everywhere That is totally true. I got halfway across my neighbor's yard before being shot at.
Re:Free market means exactly that ! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Free market means exactly that ! (Score:5, Funny)
I am _not_ free to go around digging trenches everywhere That is totally true. I got halfway across my neighbor's yard before being shot at.
That's the reason we got much better internet in Europe. With our gun laws around we don't get shot while getting us better net.
Comcast, government enforced monopoly == (!market) (Score:2, Informative)
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 "i
Re:Comcast, government enforced monopoly == (!mark (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Comcast, government enforced monopoly == (!mark (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It doesn't even have to be the government, rather it's an entity that has no commercial interests in the infrastructure they're providing. This can be done by making the wholesale provider a completely separate corporate entity from retail providers (and preventing the wholesale provider from being a retail provider).
A government service like a infrastructure provider can be corporatised and run on it's own $0 profit mandate without govt interference. They only have to make enough to meet costs (incl. expansion costs).
Re:Comcast, government enforced monopoly == (!mark (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess I am spoiled. I grew up in Conservative Texas, where the communist TXU provided power, cheaper and more reliably than anywhere else in the US. Though power in TX went to shit when they privatized.
Same story with Australian states that went the same way. I'm in one of the lucky states where the power distribution utility was corpratised, so no longer under direct govt control but still has no profit motive. States that went for full privatisation ended up with horrible power bills.
Private companies that had capped profits is what brought us AT&T and the insurance industry.
Corpratised entities aren't technically private. They're more like non-profit organisations that have to provide a service. At the very worst, they have to turn over their profit to the government.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well said! It's quite sad how people naturally distinguish the two. This is the second time we've faced such corporate entanglement in government, and the second time we've had the government more interested in the "spoils of victory" than governing, but it's the first time we have both at once. I really hope we can avoid the violence that accompanied the last cycle, as I doubt we have a Chester A. Arthur out there man enough to step up.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, in the normal course of the business cycle you'll get many competitors when times are good and then the poorly run ones fail, or get acquired in the bad times, leaving just a handful. But absent barriers to entry (yay regulatory capture!), there will be a new crowd when the economy comes full circle, and one of the new guys often displaces an older firm when the next culling comes.
That's the normal way it's supposed to happen, if not ruined by bailouts or other government selection of winners. Lots
Re:Free market means exactly that ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free market means exactly that ! (Score:5, Informative)
A journey from Philadelphia to Charleston involved eight different gauges, which meant that passengers and freight had to change trains seven times.
It was the government (sic!) stepping in after the Civil War with the construction of the transcontinental railways which caused the different gauges to be harmonized to the U.S. gauge of 1448 mm, later to 1435 mm ("normal gauge").
Re:Free market means exactly that ! (Score:5, Informative)
Adam Smith himself wrote about the need to put legal limits on unethical business practices.
Re:Free market means exactly that ! (Score:5, Insightful)
But knowing that would require actually having read all of what Adam Smith wrote not just the parts one likes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, that was Joseph Smith.
Re:Free market means exactly that ! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
And if he goes to another registrar, can he take is name with him? Sorry. but it's not clear to me that he can. If he can, then your argument makes sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You can transfer domains to a different registrar.
Except, of course, if your previous registrar refuses the transfer-out due to outstanding payments - e.g. the payments for the $1850 service of which you did not opt out.
Re:Free market means exactly that ! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm shocked that someone with such a very low slashdot ID would be even the least bit confused about this.
Re: (Score:3)
Get off my fucking lawn.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
In a free market there is no fraud.
Re: (Score:3)
In a free market there is no fraud.
Fraud is illegal. In a free market, nothing is illegal. So yes, you're right. But so what?
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: Call a Lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
By reading this post, you are agreeing to my charging you $1000. Please provide CC info here: ___________
Damnit. Okay, my card number is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX exp XX/XX ccv XXX
Re: Call a Lawyer (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The end of the story is *even better*... he calls them, and all is fine now!
Re: (Score:2)
Does that actually apply to any non-telco service provider?
Re:Netsol ran out of evil points (Score:4, Informative)
Footer fortune atm: "And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs