Here in Paraná there’s a rather old law against that too, from 2007. Back then the concern was phone companies and credit card companies doing it, but the law was worded in a surprisingly sensible way, so it protects customers against online roach motels too. I’ll coarsely translate it from Portuguese, (sourced from p203):
Law #15627, 18/Sep/2007
*Enforces that providers of continued services are required to ensure to customers the ability to request the cancellation of the service through the same means which the acquisition was requested, as specified.
Article #1 - Providers of continued services are required to offer to customers the ability to request the cancellation of services through the same means which the acquisition [of said services] was requested.
Article #2 - Furthermore they should provide cancellation means through phone, internet, or mail.
Article #3 - For the effects of this law, as “continued services”, without implying exclusion of similar [services]:
I - subscription of newspapers, magazines, and other periodic publications;
II - paid television, internet providers, landed or mobile telephone lines, data transmission and aggregated services;
III - gym academies and open courses;
IV - capitalisation titles and insurance bonds;
V - credit cards and “discount cards”.
It seems that the governor back then was already expecting companies to rule-lawyer and say “ackshyually we aren’t offering [service], we’re offering [same service under different name], so it doesn’t apply to us”, so the way that article #3 was worded basically lists examples, not an exhaustive list. As much as I hate that specific governor I can’t help but think that he did a good job with this law.
Here in Paraná there’s a rather old law against that too, from 2007. Back then the concern was phone companies and credit card companies doing it, but the law was worded in a surprisingly sensible way, so it protects customers against online roach motels too. I’ll coarsely translate it from Portuguese, (sourced from p203):
Law #15627, 18/Sep/2007
*Enforces that providers of continued services are required to ensure to customers the ability to request the cancellation of the service through the same means which the acquisition was requested, as specified.
It seems that the governor back then was already expecting companies to rule-lawyer and say “ackshyually we aren’t offering [service], we’re offering [same service under different name], so it doesn’t apply to us”, so the way that article #3 was worded basically lists examples, not an exhaustive list. As much as I hate that specific governor I can’t help but think that he did a good job with this law.