WAMU16%

How cities and states are fighting subscription traps31%

7/14/2026, 12:52:24 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 0 faulty reasoning types, including no named faulty reasoning patterns yet, with no single egregious example has been isolated yet. Analysis detected 0 faulty-reasoning hits from 178 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.7% and a BS Rank of 31% (10,802 of 15,664 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 69.00% of the article peer group.

What do gyms, TV shows, pet food, and smart doorbells all have in common?

Nowadays, you might use a monthly subscription or other recurring membership to access these goods or services. The average American spends $219 every month on subscriptions. That’s more than $2,600 a year. Those recurring payments mean predictable profits for companies. That is, unless you cancel.

Enter: subscription traps. That’s when companies make it easy for customers to sign up but difficult to be done. Some also use deceptive tactics to automatically enroll customers into a subscription after a free trial ends without making the terms clear. In recent years, cities and states have moved to crack down on subscription traps.

They’re also taking steps to regulate junk fees that companies can add to goods and services. That’s caused prices to soar far beyond what’s advertised. One of those leading the way is New York City, where authorities announced a ban on abusive subscription practices on Friday.

How are regulators around the country working to protect consumers?

Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
0%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

178 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.