Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU : final report.
Date: 2017-09-07
Institutions: Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency
Subjects: advertising malpractice, consumer behaviour, consumer policy, consumer protection, digital technology, electronic commerce, goods and services, marketing, purchase, report

Misleading « free » trials and 
subscription traps for 
consumers in the EU 

Written by GfK Belgium 
February – 2016 

Justice and 
Consumers 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Produced by Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (Chafea) on behalf of 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
Directorate E — Consumers 
Unit E5 — Enforcement and European Consumer Centres 

E-mail:  just-e5@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Misleading « free » trials and 
subscription traps for 
consumers in the EU 

2016 

EN 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
EU Consumer Programme  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels 

may charge you). 

This  report  was  produced  under  the  EU  Consumer  Programme  (2007-2013)  in  the  frame  of  a 
service  contract  with  the  Consumers,  Health,  Agriculture  and  Food  Executive  Agency  (Chafea) 
acting under the mandate from the European Commission. 
The content of this report represents the views of the contractor and is its sole responsibility; it 
can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission and/or Chafea or other 
body of the European Union. 
The European Commission and/or Chafea do not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in 
this report, nor do they accept responsibility for any use made by third parties thereof. 
Main report and Annexes 9, 10 and 12 are prepared by Sarah Botterman, Michael Debusscher, 
Allison  Dunne  and  Veerle  Minne  (alphabetical  order,  GfK  Belgium).  Annex  8  is  prepared  by 
Stefan  Van  Camp  (time.lex).  Annex  11  and  Annex  13  are  prepared  by  Katherine  Carman, 
Charlene Rohr, Jahedi Salar and Sonia Sousa (alphabetical order, RAND Europe). 

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 

Numéro de projet: 2016.3806 

Titre: Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Version linguistique  Numéro de catalogue  ISBN 

DOI 

EN 

EB-01-16-419-EN-N 

978-92-9200-712-6  10.2818/3605 

© European Union, 2016 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

TABLE OF CONTENT 

Abstract ............................................................................................................ 1 

1. 

Introduction ............................................................................................. 2 

2. 

Scope and approach .................................................................................. 7 

3. 

Free trials as elements of business models ............................................. 11 

3.1.  Typology 1: health supplements and cosmetics free samples & club membership 14 

3.2.  Typology 2: dating services freemium & advertising 

15 

3.3.  Typology 3: cloud-based backup and video/music streaming freemium & reliance 
on consumer inertia 

15 

4.  Defining  problematic  practices  regarding  free  trials  and  subscription 
traps  17 

4.1.  The legal context for defining problematic practices 

4.2.  Problematic practices in the three typologies of business models 

18 

26 

  Problematic  practices  in  typology  1:  health  supplements  and  cosmetics  free  samples  &  club 

  Problematic practices in typology 2: dating services, freemium & advertising 
  Problematic  practices  in  typology  3:  cloud-based  backup  and  video/music  streaming, 

4.2.1.
membership 
4.2.2.
4.2.3.
freemium & reliance on consumer inertia 

26 
28 

29 

State  of  play  of  problematic  practices  regarding  free  trials  and 

5. 
subscription traps ........................................................................................... 31 

5.1.  The digital consumer journey 

5.2.  Problematic practices at the point of ordering a free trial 

5.3.  Problematic practices after ordering a free trial 

5.4.  Reasons consumers become victim to misleading free trials 

32 

36 

40 

46 

6.  Actions to take towards three actors ...................................................... 49 

6.1.  Focus on the consumer 

6.2.  Focus on the traders 

6.3.  Focus on intermediaries 

49 

51 

54 

7. 

Conclusion .............................................................................................. 57 

8.  Annex legal framework ........................................................................... 61 

9.  Annex stakeholder survey and workshop ............................................... 81 

9.1.  Introduction 

9.2.  Results 

81 

81 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

9.2.1.
9.2.2.
9.2.3.

  Problems related to (misleading) free trials 
  Consumer detriment 
  Actions and recommendations from stakeholders 

9.3.  Conclusion 

9.4.  Additional information 

81 
88 
89 

95 

95 

10.  Annex consumer survey........................................................................ 103 

10.1. Introduction 

10.2. Results 

103 

104 

10.2.1.
10.2.2.
10.2.3.
10.2.4.
10.2.5.
10.2.6.
10.2.7.
10.2.8.
10.2.9.
10.2.10.
10.2.11.
10.2.12.
10.2.13.
10.2.14.
10.2.15.

104 
Online purchase behaviour 
109 
Reasons and concerns when purchasing online 
111 
Active research before purchase 
112 
Paying attention to terms and conditions 
Knowledge on pre-contractual relevant information rights and stopping a subscription  115 
118 
Ordering a free trial online per type of product 
119 
Search for free trial 
120 
Country of seller / trader of free trial 
121 
Reasons to order a free trial 
122 
Virtual place of choice ordering a free trial 
122 
Seeking consent of consumers 
123 
Incidence of problems 
126 
Product that was ordered when experiencing problems with free trials 
127 
Type of problems 
129 
Actions taken after problem with free trial 

10.3. Conclusion 

10.4. Additional information 

131 

132 

11.  Annex website screening exercise (market analysis) ........................... 147 

11.1. Introduction 

11.2. Results 

11.2.1.
11.2.2.
11.2.3.
11.2.4.
11.2.5.
11.2.6.

Consumers and business models 
Defining the product categories 
What the web search tells us in terms of business typologies 
Estimating the extent to which “free trials” might be misleading 
Association between severity of grey zone/illegal practices and popularity 
Prevailing grey zone/illegal practices 

11.3. Additional information 

147 

148 

148 
154 
154 
172 
187 
190 

194 

12.  Annex mystery shopping exercise ........................................................ 205 

12.1. Introduction 

12.2. Results: Order/Sign up stage 

12.2.1.
12.2.2.
12.2.3.
12.2.4.

Assessment of the free trial 
Personal information 
Costs 
Delivery date 

12.3. Results: Cancellation stage 

12.4. Results: Post cancellation stage 

205 

207 

210 
212 
213 
214 

215 

217 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

12.5. Conclusion 

12.6. Additional information 

218 

218 

13.  Annex behavioural experiment ............................................................. 223 

13.1. Introduction 

13.2. Results 

13.2.1.
13.2.2.
13.2.3.
13.2.4.

Enrolment in Trials 
Noticing Monthly Fees 
Notice Trial Length 
Overconfident Beliefs about Future Behaviour 

13.3. Conclusion 

13.4. Additional information 

223 

228 

230 
231 
234 
236 

238 

239 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Abstract 

Prior  consumer  surveys  carried  out  at  EU  level  highlight  that  95%  of  EU28  online 
consumers  purchased  goods  and  services  at  least  once  during  the  previous  year. 
However,  consumers  are  not  very  aware  of  their  rights  when  making  online  purchases. 
One marketing tool that is used to entice online consumers is the use of free trials. They 
suggest  that  the  product  can  be  ordered  for  free,  or  that  consumers  can  subscribe  to  a 
service  without  any  costs  (for  a  period  of  time).  Some  free  trials  involve  problematic 
commercial  practices.  These  misleading  trials  trap  the  consumer  into  subscriptions  to 
purchase the tested product or services. 

This  study  sheds  light  on  the  experiences  and  problems  faced  by  consumers  when 
engaging  in  an  online  free  trial  in  the  EU.  The  study  compiles  the  views  of  24,500 
consumers,  66%  of  whom  had  ordered  a  free  trial  online  in  the  previous  year  alongside 
the  experience  and  opinions  of  stakeholders’  (i.e.  European  Consumer  Centres  and  the 
Consumer  Protection  Cooperation  network),  a  mystery  shopping  exercise  to  explore  the 
process  and  consequence  of  ordering  a  free  trial  as  well  as  a  behavioural  experiment  to 
understand why consumers can fall victim to misleading free trials. 

1 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

1. Introduction 

The  consumer  journey  models  the  steps  in  the  decision  making  process  of  the 
consumer;  from  the  moment  of  first  contact  with  a  product  or  service  to  the  ultimate 
purchase of a product or subscription to a service. As illustrated in the figure below,  the 
classical model  is linear.  It  starts  with  a  trigger  that  motivates  the  consumer  to  start 
the  journey,  first  by  pre-screening  his/her  needs,  considering  the  different  features  that 
he/she  is  looking  for  in  a  product  or  service,  then  actively  searching  for  information 
viewed  as  necessary  to  come  to  an  evaluation  of  all  available  options.  Only  then,  the 
consumer ranks options and comes to a final decision to purchase a specific product or to 
subscribe to a specific service. 

Figure 1 The linear consumer journey  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

The digital evolution has changed this linear model. As illustrated in the second figure, 
consumers  experience  brands  on  the  move,  in  their  homes  or  at  work.  There  are  new 
ways  of  communicating,  gathering  information  on  products  and  services,  shopping  and 
engaging  with  brands  and  interacting  with  traders  and  companies.  Consumers  move 
across  devices,  from  traders’  websites  to  Facebook  or  Twitter,  and  are  often  confronted 
with  new  types  of  triggers,  such  as  pop-up  advertisements  while  browsing  the  internet. 
For  marketers,  this  evolving  consumer  environment  creates  new  opportunities  to 
engage and influence, for instance via offering free trials and subscriptions online.  

Figure 2 The digital consumer journey  

Consumer surveys1 carried out at EU level highlight that 95% of EU28 online consumers 
have already purchased tangible goods and offline services at least once in the previous 
12  months.  Furthermore,  consumers  use  the  internet  and  online  market  places  to 
research products before making a purchase. However, consumers are not very aware of 
their rights when making these purchases online, with only 9% of EU28 online consumers 
able  to  correctly  identify  the  latest  stage  when  they  have  the  right  to  withdraw  from  a 
purchase of a digital content and get their money back.  

One marketing tool that is used to entice consumers is the use of online free trials. They 
suggest  that  the  product  can  be  ordered  for  free,  or  that  consumers  can  subscribe  to  a 
service without any costs (for a period of time).  

1 GfK Belgium (2015) Provision of two online consumer surveys as support and evidence base to a Commission 
study: Identifying the main cross-border obstacles to the Digital Single Market and where they matter most. 
European Commission, Brussels.  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Nonetheless,  as  Milton  Friedman  coined  the  phrase  “There’s  no  such  thing  as  a  free 
lunch”  in  the  1970s2,  anything  offered  for  free  invariably  has  a  monetary  cost,  a 
transaction  cost,  or  a  perceived  expectation  to  reciprocate  the  gesture.  Applying  this  to 
free trials, there are incidences whereby these marketing tools deceive the consumer and 
enrol the consumer inadvertently into a paying subscription.  

It  is  known  that  some  free  trials  involve  deceptive  commercial  practices.  These 
misleading  free  trials  trap  the  consumer  into  subscriptions  to  purchase  the  tested 
product or services. They are persistent problematic practices, affecting many consumers 
across Europe despite the available legal framework to protect consumers.  

For example, the promotion of a good or service as “for free” when it is not is prohibited 
by  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practices  Directive.  The  Consumer  Rights  Directive  protects 
consumers  by  requiring  online  traders  to  display  prominently  and  just  before  the 
consumer  places  his  order  key  elements  of  the  contract  such  as  the  total  price,  main 
characteristics  of  the  goods  or  services,  duration  of  the  contract  and  the  conditions  for 
terminating  the  contract  if  it  is  concluded  for  indeterminate  duration  and  the  minimum 
duration  of  the  consumer’s  obligation  under  the  contract.  Some  “free”  trials  may  not 
involve a monetary payment by the consumer, but are used to collect consumer personal 
data  for  further  processing,  for  example  for  marketing  purposes,  which  would  require 
consent  by  the  user  in  accordance  with  EU  data  protection  law.  According  to  the 
circumstances, failure to inform the consumer that his or her personal data may be used 
for  commercial  purposes  may  also  be  contrary  to  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practices 
Directive.  

However, it is not known exactly what different problematic practices or patterns of such 
practices  are  associated  with  free  trials,  to  what  extent  problematic  practices  are 
prevalent  in  Europe  and  what  kinds  of  issues  consumers  encounter  as  a  result  of  these 
problematic practices. Therefore, this study provides evidence on these various aspects in 
order  to  paint  a  picture  of  possible  problematic  practices  associated  with  free  trials  in 
Europe.  While  “misleading”  unfair  commercial practices  are  a  specific category  governed 
by  the  provisions  of  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practices  Directive,  in  this  report  the  term 
“misleading” is used to indicate generally free trials that are associated with one or more 
problematic  practices  that  may  infringe  applicable  EU  law  (unfair  commercial  practices, 
unclear pre-contractual information, unfair contract terms, lack of user consent etc.). 

The  insights  of  this  study  are  structured  as  follows  (see  Figure  3).  First,  online  free 
trials  are  introduced  as  elements  of  business  models  and  as  elements  within  the 
consumer journey. The different typologies are explored and the ways in which free trials 
and  subscriptions  are  offered  are  discussed.  Following  this  exercise,  the  legal  context  is 
introduced to verify which practices in the different typologies of business models can be 
considered problematic and possibly breaching EU law. Subsequently, all different kinds of 
problematic practices are considered that should be taken into account when researching 
free  trials  and  subscription  traps  online.  Then  the  state  of  play  of  misleading  free  trials 
and subscription traps is considered. Both the factual incidence of such practices is looked 
at  using  a  factual  website  screening  analysis,  as  well  as  the  perceived  incidence  of 
problematic  practices  regarding  free  trials  and  subscription  traps  using  consumer  and 
stakeholder  survey  analyses.  Next,  the  potential  detriment  for  consumers  and  the 
problems  that  are  caused  by  misleading  free  trials  and  subscription  traps  are  outlined. 
The  focus  is  placed  on  the  post-trial  or  subscription  phase  and  the  type  of  problems. 

2   Laochumnanvanit, K., & Bednall, D. H. (2005). Consumers' evaluation of free service trial offers. Academy of 
marketing science review, 11, 1-13; Friedman, D. A., (2008). Free offers: A New Look. 38 N.M. L. Rev. 49-
98. 

4 

 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Finally,  the  actions  coming  from  these  insights  are  discussed.  The  focus  is  placed  on 
actions  that  can  be  taken  to  inform  the  consumer,  to  regulate  traders,  and  to  engage 
intermediaries. 

Figure 3 Structure of the report 

5 

 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

2. Scope and approach 

The aim of the study is to have a better understanding of the incidence and consequences 
of misleading free trials across Europe. Indeed, misleading free trials that trap consumers 
into  subscriptions  to  purchase  regularly  the  tested  product  or  services  are  persistent 
problematic  practices,  affecting  many  consumers  across  Europe.  This  study  concerns 
misleading  free  trials  and  subscriptions  traps  that  are  offered  in  B2C  commercial 
relations through  online channels (e-commerce, mobile applications and social media). 
Other  channels  where  hidden  subscription  problems  occur  (e.g.  sales  by  telephone, 
correspondence,  door-step  selling)  are  not  the  core  subject  of  this  study.  Subscription 
traps  relate  to  situations  where  the  consumer  is  misled  and  inadvertently  signs  up  to  a 
subscription  contract  following  marketing  practices  that  aim  to  attract  the  consumer  by 
way of free or cheap samples, tests or trial offers. Consumer problems regarding renewal 
and/or automatic roll-over of subscriptions in general are not the focus of this study (e.g. 
energy or telephone contracts tacit renewal).  

Subscription  traps  occur  in  a  wide  range  of  online  markets.  Therefore,  both  products 
and  services  are  considered  in  this  study.  Nonetheless,  these  problematic  practices 
seem  to  occur  more  frequently  in  certain  sectors.  This  study  therefore  focusses  more 
specifically on 4 product and services categories: cosmetics and healthcare products, 
food  and  health  supplements,  dating  services,  and  cloud-based  backup  services.  These 
four  categories  tend  to  use  free  trials  and  subscriptions  as  part  of  their  marketing 
strategy and are often offered online: 

1.  Cosmetics  and  healthcare  products  range  from  everyday  hygiene  products  to 
luxury  beauty  items.  These  products  are  regulated  at  European  level  to  ensure 
consumer  safety  and  to  secure  an  internal  market  for  cosmetics.  The  sector  is 
highly innovative and expected to grow significantly over the coming years.  

2.  Health supplements form a booming market, especially related to the market for 
dietary  supplements  (such  as  vitamins,  minerals,  nutritional  and  herbal 
supplements, and muscle enhancers). The recent and future growth of this market 
is  driven  by,  amongst  other  factors,  an  aging  population  within  Europe  and 
increased consumer awareness of preventative healthcare.  

3.  Dating  services  relate  to  online  dating  sites  where  individuals  can  find  and 
contact each other over the Internet to arrange a date, usually with the objective 
of  developing  a  personal,  romantic,  or  sexual  relationship.  Online  dating  services 
usually  provide  unmoderated  matchmaking  over  the  internet  and  users  of  an 
online  dating  service  provide  personal  information,  to  enable  them  to  search  the 
service provider's database for other individuals.  

4.  Digital  services  relate  to  different  services  offered  online.  As  part  of  the  rapid-
evidence  assessment  candidate  ‘digital  services’  were  identified  based  on  the 
following  criteria:  (1)  those  with  a  greater  frequency  of  consumer  problems 
reported  (e.g.  as  capture  by  the  ECC  reports/database)  and  (2)  those  that  were 
identified as topical. Desk research indicated that strong candidates for the fourth 
B2C  category  were  cloud-based  backup  services  and  video/music 
streaming.  Cloud  based  backup  services  are  more  and  more  used  to  store  or 
share  files  online.  Although  little  data  was  found  suggesting  that  these  cloud-

7 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

based  backup  services  and  video/music  streaming  were  services  that  consumers 
frequently  complained  about,  evidence  suggested  that  they  were  growing  market 
areas and therefore topical. In addition, these are services where (1) “free” trials-
based business models are frequent and (2) they appear to have features present 
in misleading “free” trials.  

In general, the study covers the 28 EU Member States plus Norway and Iceland (as 
consumer markets). For specific tasks, representative selections of countries were made. 
The study included the following research tasks: 

1.  An  overall  analysis  of  the  functioning  of  misleading  free  trials  and  subscription 

traps  

  Market analysis and marketing practices 
  Mapping of the consumer problems and of action undertaken 
  Websites, apps and social media checking 

2.  In-depth consumer opinion survey  
3.  Online mystery shopping analysis  
4.  Behavioural experiment  

The approach that was  used to answer the  research  tasks  consisted  of a  combination of 
methodologies, amongst others a literature review, a stakeholders’ survey, a workshop 
with  the  European  Consumer  Centres  (ECC-net3)  and  Consumer  Protection  Cooperation 
(CPC  network4)  stakeholders,  an  online  consumer  survey,  a  legal  context  analysis,  a 
website  screening  analysis,  a  market  analysis,  a  mystery  shopping  analysis,  and  a 
behavioural experiment. In the main report (chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7), all these research 
tasks and methodologies are integrated using a cross-cutting approach. In the annexes of 
this report (chapters 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13), they are outlined separately.5 

An  overview  table  considers  the  different  research  tasks,  methodologies,  and  scope 
(geographical scope and market scope). 

333 http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/solving_consumer_disputes/non-judicial_redress/ecc-net/index_en.htm  
44 http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/cross-border_enforcement_cooperation/index_en.htm  
5 Main report and Annexes 9, 10 and 12 are prepared by Sarah Botterman, Michael Debusscher, Allison Dunne 
and Veerle Minne (alphabetical order, GfK Belgium). Annex 8 is prepared by Stefan Van Camp (time.lex). Annex 
11 and Annex 13 are prepared by Katherine Carman, Charlene Rohr, Jahedi Salar and Sonia Sousa (alphabetical 
order, RAND Europe). 

8 

 
 
                                           
 
Table 1 Overview of research tasks, methodology, scope & approach  

Research 
task 

Overall 
analysis of 
the 
functioning 
of 
misleading 
free trials 
and 
subscription 
traps  

Subtasks 

Methodology  

Market scope 

Geographical scope  

Market analysis 
and marketing 
practices 

  Literature review 
  Website screening 

analysis of websites, 
Facebook pages and 
mobile apps 

  Legal context review 

Mapping of the 
consumer 
problems and of 
the actions 
undertaken 

  Stakeholder survey 
  Workshop 

using 
world  café  technique 
based  on  workshop 
report and discussion 
gather 
to 
paper 
feedback 
the 
study 
findings  and 
finalise 
recommendations 

on 

1.  health supplements 
2.  cosmetics 
3.  online 

dating 

services 

4.  cloud-based  backup 
+ 

services 
video/music 
streaming services 

All goods and service 
categories 

28 EU Member States plus 
Iceland and Norway 

Representatives of 
consumer protection 
authorities and ECC network 
within 28 EU Member States 
plus Iceland and Norway  

Websites, apps 
and social media 
checking 

  Website 

screening 
analysis  of  websites, 
Facebook  pages  and 
mobile apps 

28 EU Member States plus 
Iceland and Norway 

1.  health supplements 
2.  cosmetics 
3.  online 

dating 

services 

4.  cloud-based  backup 
+ 

services 
video/music 
streaming services 

 
 
 
Research 
task 

Subtasks 

Methodology  

Market scope 

Geographical scope  

In-depth consumer opinion 
survey in 28 EU Member States 
plus Iceland and Norway 

Online mystery shopping 
exercise in 8 EU Member States 

Behavioural experiment in 8 EU 
Member States 

  Online 

consumer 
survey  using  online 
panels, 
representative 
samples of the online 
18+ population 

  Mystery 
shopping 
including 
analysis, 
signing  up 
to  a 
specific  free  trial  and 
to 
then 
the 
cancel 
subscription 
before 
the  end  of  the  trial 
period 

attempt 

  Online 

behavioural 

experiment, 
mimicking 
subscription sites 

common 

All goods and service 
categories 

28 EU Member States plus 
Iceland and Norway 

8 EU Member States: BG, 
NL, IT, DE, LT, SE, PL, UK  

8 EU Member States: BG, 
NL, IT, DE, LT, SE, PL, UK 

1.  health supplements 
2.  cosmetics 
3.  online 

dating 

services 

4.  cloud-based  backup 
+ 

services 
video/music 
streaming services 

1.  health supplements 
2.  cosmetics 
3.  online 

dating 

services 

4.  cloud-based  backup 
+ 

services 
video/music 
streaming services 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

3. Free trials as elements of business models 

Free  trials  are  not  harmful  per  se.  Traders  often  use  this  marketing  technique  to 
showcase  their  confidence  that  their  product  will  satisfy  the  consumer,  many  without 
malicious  intent.  In  this  chapter,  free  trial  product  offers  and  test  subscriptions  are 
introduced  as  elements  of  common  business  models  in  four  sectors:  cosmetics  and 
healthcare  products,  food  and  health  supplements,  dating  services,  and  digital  services 
(i.e. cloud-based backup and video/music streaming services). Whilst free trials also from 
the basis of business models for other product categories, as discussed in the scope and 
approach  chapter  of  this  study,  the  focus  primarily  goes  to  these  product  and  service 
categories.  

In order to derive three typologies of business models that utilise free trials, a framework 
for  analysis  was  developed6.  This  framework  was  based  on  a  literature  review  covering 
issues such as: 

  Pricing strategies. It was amongst others investigated:  

o  What goods or services were free and for how long? 
o  What goods or services consumers had to pay for? 
o  Was it a one-off payment or a  rolling payment and, in this latter case, for 

how long? 

  What  consumers  have  to  give  up  in  return  for  the  free  trial.  It  was 
investigated if consumers had to give amongst others the following information in 
return for the free trial or subscription: 

o  personal information  
o  credit card details 

  Sources  of  revenues.  It  was  investigated  which  sources  of  revenues  were 

connected to the free trials, such as 

o  unintended purchases 
o  small periodic charges 
o  sale of personal information to third parties 

  Relevant  behavioural  biases.  It  was  amongst  others  investigated whether  free 
trials  took  into  account  the  behavioural  biases  via  information  overload, 
forgetfulness  of  consumers,  or  framing-in  purchasing  strategies.  Framing-in 
strategies  related  to  amongst  others  time  limits,  testimonials,  scarcity  of  the 
product, and misleading advertising. 

  Cancellation practices: It was amongst others investigated: 
o  How hard it is to find the cancellation procedure? 
o  Are conditions for cancelling difficult to put in place? 
o 

Is  cancelation  possible  at  any  time  or  only  after  a  certain  period  (e.g.  on 
the 1-year anniversary)? 

6 A more detailed description of this website screening analysis (market analysis) can be found in Annex 11. 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

  Duration of the contract: It was amongst others investigated: 

o  Whether the contractual information was clearly stated 
o  Whether  shortening  the  contract  was  linked  to  a  penalty  (monetary  or 

other). 

  Free  content.  It  was  further  investigated  what  the  consumer  received  for  free. 

Several possible free trial options were considered, such as: 

o  A  sample  of  the  product  (e.g.  'welcome  pack')  posted  to  the  consumer's 

address 

o  A  sample  of  the  product  (e.g.  'welcome  pack')  to  be  collected  by  the 

consumers at a specific location 

o  A  time-unlimited,  service-limited  trial  (example:  Survey  Monkey  offers  a 

free trial for surveys up to 10 questions for as long as you want) 

o  A  time-limited,  service-limited  trial  (example:  30-day  dating  'free'  trial 

limited to viewing only some features of each profile) 

o  A  time-limited,  service-unlimited  trial  (example:  30-day  dating  'free'  trial 

with unrestricted profile viewing) 

o  Winning  a  prize  (e.g.  a  smart  phone,  a  tablet,  a  travel)  as  a  result  of  a 

contest/competition 

This  framework  for  analysis  was  further  used,  screening  around  900 websites,  Facebook 
pages and mobile apps. These online sources were screened for two purposes: 

1.  to identify the main types of business models used within each main product group  
2.  to estimate to what extent free trials may be misleading7  

7 i.e. include malpractices as identified in Chapter 4 of this report 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

The results of this website screening analysis led to three8 typologies of business models: 

Typology 1: Health supplements and cosmetics.  

These  business  models  typically  involve  free  samples  &  club  membership,  relying  on 
consumers trying their products over a prolonged and sustained period of time. As such, 
consumers are encouraged to try the product and continue their use for maximum effect. 
Within this typology, there are three broad types of business models: 

1.  Free samples as a marketing tool 
2.  Free samples in return for product reviews 
3.  Club membership from day zero. 

Typology 2: Dating services.  

Business  models  for  dating  services  tend  to  allow  users  to  avail  of  a  restricted  service 
(either  time-restricted  or  feature-restricted)  for  free  while  preserving  some  key  features 
for  paying  members.  Alternatively,  this  service  can  be  free  as  the  business  model  is 
supported by advertisements: marketers can  usually rely on a steady flow of web-traffic 
to advertise their products or services. This typology uses two types of business models: 

1.  Advertising-supported free sites 
2.  ‘Freemium’. 

Typology 3: Cloud-based backup services and video/music streaming services.  

The  associated  models  allow  consumers  to  engage  with  the  service  and  rely  on 
consumers’  forgetfulness  or  propensity  to  continue  the  status  quo.  Another  explanation 
could  be  linked  to  the  perceived  transaction  costs  of  closing  an  account  (e.g.  where  an 
individual  has  already  stored  a  lot  of  information  and  would  need  to  retrieve  this  for 
storage elsewhere).This typology uses two main business modes: 

 
 

‘Consumer inertia reliant’ free trials  
‘Freemium’,  

8  Given  that  health  supplements  and  cosmetics  typically  use  the  same  business  models  these  product  groups 

form one typology. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 4 Three typologies of business models  

Typology 1 

 Free samples & club 
membership 

Health supplements & 
Cosmetics 

1) Free samples as a 
marketing tool 

2) Free samples in 
return for product 
reviews 

3) Club membership 
from day zero 

Typology 2 

 'Freemium' & 
advertising 

Dating services 

Typology 3 

'Freemium' & reliance on 
consumer inertia 

Cloud-based backup & 
video/music streaming 

1) Advertising-
supported free sites 

1) 'Consumer inertia 
reliant’ free trials 

2) ‘Freemium’ 

•advertising-
supported free basic 
versions 
•paid premium 
versions 
•Often free trials for 
premium versions 

2) ‘Freemium’ 

•advertising-
supported free basic 
versions 
•paid premium 
versions 
•Often free trials for 
premium versions 

In the following subsections, the three typologies are discussed that are presented in the 
figure above. 

3.1.  Typology 1: health supplements and cosmetics 

free samples & club membership  

Typology  1  applies  to  the  product  categories  of  both  health  supplements  and  cosmetics. 
Typically, there are three broad types of business models in these markets:  

1.  Free samples as a marketing tool,  
2.  Free samples in return for product reviews, and  
3.  Club membership from day zero. 

Free  samples  as  a  marketing  tool  involves  traders  giving  away  a  free  sample  of  their 
health  supplement  or  cosmetic  product  to  consumers  who  sign  up,  without  asking  for 
anything  in  return,  with  the  exception  of  an  email  address  and  postal  address  to  which 
the sample should be posted. The postage is often covered by the trader. The marketing 
assumption  is  that  once  consumers  have  experienced  the  product,  some  will  like  it  and 
will  decide  to  become  (regular)  customers.  The  Terms  and  Conditions  suggest  that 
consumers  should  expect  to  receive  regular  promotional  materials  and  newsletters  by 
email or post.  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Free  samples  in  return  for  product  reviews  are  a  marketing  tool  where  consumers  are 
asked to sign up and apply to become a product tester, providing a review of the tested 
cosmetic product or healthcare supplement. The product testers  receive a  sample of the 
product by post, which they can  keep free of charge if they provide a product review to 
be posted online and/or ‘like’ on the trader’s Facebook page. The postage is usually paid 
by the trader.  

Club  membership  from  day  zero  involves  consumers  signing  up  for  a  paid  membership 
from the day they sign up, which lasts until consumers withdraw from this membership. 
Specifically,  consumers  receive  a  sample  of  the  product  and  if  they  keep  it  they  will  be 
both back-charged for the free sample and will be automatically engaged in a regular paid 
subscription of receiving a certain cosmetic or healthcare supplement.  

3.2.  Typology 2: dating services 

freemium & advertising 

The second typology of dating services typically uses two business models: 

1.  Advertising-supported free sites, and  
2.  Freemium. 

Advertising-supported  free  dating  services  is  a  business  model  were  publicity-supported 
websites/apps/social  media  offer  a  free  service  to  whoever  wants  to  register.  These 
services tend to offer a basic level of services which seldom go beyond displaying a brief 
profile  and  photo  of  each  member.  Consumers  are  able  to  search  for  people  to  contact 
using  basic  search/filtering  functionalities.  These  are  usually  limited  to  personal 
characteristics  such  as  age  group,  gender  or  location.  Registration  is  easy  and  requires 
few personal details.  

In  the  freemium  model,  consumers  have  access  to  a  free  basic  membership,  providing 
access to a limited set of services. Quite often basic membership is supported by publicity 
so basic members see adverts while browsing. Consumers can upgrade to a paid premium 
membership  in  return  for  access  to  publicity-free,  more  sophisticated  services.  Quite 
often,  members  with  a  basic  membership  are  offered  a  time-limited  free  trial  of  the 
premium membership. Consumers are presented with one or more price plans and invited 
to subscribe by providing payment details, with the attraction that they will enjoy a time-
limited free trial.  

3.3.  Typology 3: cloud-based backup and video/music streaming 

freemium & reliance on consumer inertia  

The third typology is common to cloud-based backup services and video/music streaming 
services. This typology uses two main business modes:  

1.  Consumer inertia reliant free trials, and  
2.  Freemium. 

15 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Consumer inertia reliant free trials, is a business model that focuses on taking advantage 
of  consumers’  inertia  and  overconfidence.  The  trader  provides  clear  information  on  the 
sign  up  page,  so  consumers  are  able  to  understand  most  of  the  terms  of  the  free  trial 
before signing up. One of the terms of the free trial is that by signing up for the trial, they 
are  also  signing  up  for  transitioning  to  a  paid  subscription  afterwards,  unless  they  take 
the  initiative  to  cancel  before  the  end  of  the  free  trial  period.  Also,  once  consumers  are 
enrolled  in  the  paid  subscription,  it  is  often  automatically  renewed  unless  they  take  the 
initiative  to  cancel  it,  taking  advantage  of  the  fact  that  many  consumers  will  forget  to 
cancel.  

In the case of freemium, traders offer an advert-supported basic membership for free, for 
as  long  as  the  consumer  wants,  but  with  access  to  only  a  limited  service  level,  e.g. 
limited  number  of  videos  per  month  or  limited  data  storage.  A  premium,  publicity-free 
version is also available, which offers a broader range of services, e.g. unlimited publicity-
free music/video streaming and larger limits of data storage. Traders may offer free trials 
of their premium version to their free subscribers as a prompt to engage them in a paid 
subscription. Consumers are offered one or several alternative price plans to choose from. 
The time-limited and often also quantity limited free trial is only available once they sign 
up  for  a  paid  plan  by  providing  their  payment  details.  Traders  using  this  model  may 
exploit consumers’ overconfidence and inertia by engaging them in automatic renewals of 
paid subscriptions until the consumer takes the initiative to cancel it.  

16 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

4. Defining  problematic  practices  regarding  free  trials  and 

subscription traps 

The previous chapter highlighted the three main typologies of business models that utilise 
online free trials and subscriptions as a core business strategy. What is of interest for this 
study are problematic practices associated with free trials and subscriptions, as a sub-set 
of  free  trials  in  general.  Free  trials  form  a  part  of  many  different  types  of  business 
models,  not  all  of  which  are  problematic  from  a  consumer  protection  point  of  view.  But 
which ones are?  

Problematic  practices  regarding  free  trials  and  subscriptions  can  occur  at  the  point  of 
order/purchase  when  they  incorporate  any  number  of  marketing  methods  which  include 
false  or  deceptive  statements/information,  omit  material  information  or  the  terms  and 
conditions  include  unfair  terms.  Moreover  free  trials  which lead  to  a  number  of  negative 
consumer  problems  following  the  purchase,  such  as  unauthorised  credit  card  charges, 
spam, etc., can also be considered as problematic and may breach applicable EU law. 

Indeed,  several  of  the  research  tasks  included  the  identification  of  what  can  be 
considered  problematic  practices  regarding  free  trials.  These  included  the  literature 
review, the website screening, the consumer survey, the stakeholder survey and 
the mystery shopping exercise. 

All  these  analyses  looked  at  the  full  consumer  journey.  It  began  with  screening 
websites to understand if the consumer is provided with clear information before ordering 
the  free  trial.  This  was  guided  by  an  analytical  framework  which  included  a  literature 
review and a general assessment of the legal issues involved. The consumer survey then 
gathered data on the consequences that consumers experience after subscribing to what 
they  believe  is  a  free  trial.  Furthermore,  the  mystery  shopping  identified  a  number  of 
problematic issues that consumers experience throughout the consumer journey.  

Together, a series of problematic practices could be identified before, during and after 
the  time  of  taking  up  a  free  trial  or  subscription.  This  chapter  uses  the  legal 
framework  as  a  tool  to  assess  the  legality  of  these  identified  practices.  Furthermore, 
examples  of  problematic  practices  are  provided  utilising  the  typologies  of  free  trial 
business models described in Chapter Three. 

17 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

4.1.  The legal context for defining problematic practices 

This section looks at what current EU legislation says in relation to the identified practices 
before, during and after the time of taking up a free trial or subscription and examines to 
what extent the practices infringe the provisions outlined in the legal framework.  

Although  ultimately  each  free  trial  and  subscription  should  be  examined  on  a  case-by-
case basis by competent national authorities and courts, some practices are found by this 
study  to  be  more  clearly  at  odds  with  the  legislation  and  could  be  considered  as  illegal 
upfront. However others fall into the grey zone whereby their legality remains untested or 
depends  on  the  precise  circumstance  of  the  individual  case.  Therefore  these  ‘grey  zone’ 
practices  are  not  necessarily  illegal  practices  upfront  but  could,  nevertheless,  be 
considered infringing the EU legislation in certain circumstances.  

The  legal  framework  is  made  up  of  a  number  of  key  pieces  of  European  legislation.  The 
main acts and relevant provisions are as follows: 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: Directive 2005/29/EC of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  May  2005  concerning  unfair  business-to-
consumer commercial practices in the internal market.  

  Unfair  Contract  Terms  Directive:  Council  Directive  93/13/EEC  of  5  April  1993 

on unfair terms in consumer contracts. 

  Consumer  Rights  Directive:  Directive  2011/83/EU  of  the  European  Parliament 

and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights.  

  Payment  Services  Directive:  Directive  2007/64/EC  of  the  European  Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  of  13  November  2007  on  payment  services  in  the  internal 
market 

  E-Commerce Directive: Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, 
in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market.  

  E-Privacy Directive: Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  of  12  July  2002  concerning  the  processing  of  personal  data  and  the 
protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy 
and electronic communications). 

  Data Protection Directive: European Parliament and Council Directive 95/46/EC 
of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals  with regard to the processing 
of personal data and on the free movement of such data.  

  Nutrition  and  Health  Claims  Regulation  (EC)  No  1924/2006  of  the  European 
parliament and of the council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims 
made on foods.9 

These  directives  and  regulations  are  applicable  to  the  commercial  practices  that  were 
identified  during  the  other  analyses  (literature  review,  website  screening  analysis, 
consumer survey analysis, mystery shopping analysis, stakeholder survey analysis). Table 
2  outlines  each  problematic  practice  before,  during  and  after  ordering  a  free  trial  or 
subscription  pursuant  to  the  relevant  piece  of  legislation.  Further  details  of  the  legal 
framework (including the articles in full) are provided in Annex 8. 

9  Article  20  of  the  Cosmetic  Products  Regulation  (1223/2009/EC)  governs  product  claims  in  the  labelling 
advertisement and making available on the market of cosmetic products. It foresees a Commission report by 
July 2016.  

18 

 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

The analysis shows that several problematic practices typically associated with 'free' trials 
infringe key consumer protection rules in EU law: 

While  the  trial  or  test  offers  are  promoted  as  being  for  "free"  (or  gratis,  for  only  small 
sum  for  postage),  problematic  practices  were  identified:  (i)  when  the  true  "free"  cost  is 
unclear,  (ii)  when  costs  did  occur  for  the  trial  itself  or  the  subscription  other  than 
unavoidable  or  delivery  costs.  According  to  Annex  I,  No  20  of  the  Unfair  Commercial 
Practices  Directive,  describing  a  product  as  "free"  or  similar  if  the  consumer  has  to  pay 
anything other than the unavoidable costs of responding to the commercial practice and 
collection  or  paying  for  delivery  is  in  all  circumstances  considered  an  unfair  commercial 
practice and prohibited. 

The  problematic  practices  identified  show  that  pre-contractual  information  is  often  not 
clearly  provided  as  required  by  the  Consumer  Rights  Directive,  including  essential 
information  of  which  the  consumer  must  be  prominently  made  aware,  i.e.  the 
characteristics  of  the  goods  or  service  (subscription  instead  of  a  mere  'trial'),  the  price 
and contract duration and conditions for terminating the contract cancellation procedures. 
The  Consumer  Rights  Directive  further  strengthens  the  protection  of  consumers  by 
requiring  the  trader  to  make  the  consumer  explicitly  acknowledge  that  an  online  order 
implies  an  obligation  to  pay,  and  if  a  button  or  similar  is  used,  it  must  be  easily  legible 
entailing  words  such  as  ‘order  with  obligation  to  pay’  (Art.  8.2  2nd  paragraph).  If  these 
requirements are not fulfilled, the consumer is not bound by the contract pursuant to the 
Consumer Rights Directive. 

Inertia  selling  (demanding  payment  for  or  the  return  or  safekeeping  of  products  not 
solicited by the consumer is an unfair commercial practice per se and prohibited by Annex 
I No 29 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. The Consumer Rights Directive (Art. 
27)  exempts  the  consumer  from  the  obligation  to  provide  any  consideration  for  such 
unsolicited  deliveries  and  further  stipulates  that  the  absence  of  a  response  from  the 
consumer shall not constitute consent. 

Finally,  a  contentious  mechanism  by  which  traders  effectively  “trap”  consumers  into 
subscriptions  relies  on  the  problematic  practice  of  charging  higher  amounts  or 
subscription  payments  after  the  trial  on  the  consumer’s  credit  card  or  bank  account, 
without  the  consent  from  the  consumer.  As  indicated  above,  if  certain  requirements 
regarding pre-contractual information are not fulfilled by the trader, the consumer is not 
bound by the contract  and the consumer is therefore not  obliged to pay for subscription 
charges (Art. 6.5, 6.6, 8.2). The Payment Services Directive (Art. 58, 60) also stipulates 
that failing to secure the consumer's consent, the payment is unauthorised and must be 
refunded.  

Table 2 below provides the full list of problematic practices that were identified in the 
course of the study and the relevant provisions of applicable EU law.  

19 

 
 
Table 2 Identified problematic practices before, during and after ordering a free trial or subscription 

Practices relate to… 

Problematic practice 

Legal framework 

1. Trader’s contacts  

Contact  detail(s)  are  not  found,  false,  or 
unclear, including trader’s 

  name,  
  email address,  
 
  postal address 

telephone number,  

2. Trader’s country  

This  can  lead  to  a  variety  of  issues  for 
consumers  including  inability  to  lodge 
complaints,  poor  customer  service  or 
issues when returning products 
Unclear,  false,  or  misleading  information 
on  which  country  the  trader  operates 
from  (which  can  also  contribute  to  the 
issues  mentioned 
no 
information about it. 

above) 

or 

3. Consumer’s personal 

details  

4. Passing on consumer’s 

personal details 

Relevance of the personal data requested 
is missing or unclear 
Trader  can  pass  details  on  to  others 
is 
without  consumer’s  consent  or 
unclear  whether  trader  can  pass  details 
on to others without consumer’s consent.  

it 

5. Credit card charges  

Credit  card  can  be  charged  beyond 
delivery 
is 
unclear/ambiguous/not clearly visible and 
understandable whether this is the case. 

charges 

or 

it 

  E-Commerce Directive 2000/31 

Art. 5.1 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive  

Art. 6.1  
Art. 7 

  E-Commerce Directive 2000/31 

Art. 5.1 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 7 

  Data Protection Directive 

Art. 6.1 

  Data Protection Directive 

Art. 7  
Art. 14 

  E-Privacy Directive 

Art. 13 

  Payment Services Directive 

Art. 54  
Art. 60.1  
Art. 62 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6-1 
Art. 7 

  Consumer rights Directive 

Art. 22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Practices relate to… 

Problematic practice 

Legal framework 

6. Content of free trial  

It is unclear if the free trial consists of: 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

  Posted sample 
  Sample to be collected 
  Time unlimited, service limited 
  Time limited, service limited 
  Time limited, service unlimited 
  Winning a prize 
  Free or discounted in addition to a 

purchase 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8  
Art. 22 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6  
Art 7 

  E-Commerce Directive 

Art. 5.2 

  Free but with publicity 
  Free 

if  sign  up 

newsletter 
materials 

or 

for  receiving 
promotional 

  Free 

if  a  product 

review 

is 

free  trial 

is 

  E-Commerce Directive  

7. Promoting free trial  

provided 

  Freemium 
is  unclear  how  the 

It 
promoted: 

8. Discounting practices 

  Free/gratis 
  Zero cost 
  Very cheap 
  Discount/free with purchase 
  Gift 
 

Join a community 

It  is  unclear  and  there  is  insufficient 
precise  information  about  pricing  (for 
instance  as  provide  product  review, 
engage others in paid subscription, etc.) 

9. Type of free trial charges  When  the  trial  is  promoted  as  ‘for  free’ 
(gratis,  etc.)  and  there  are  charges, 
other 
indicated 
transportation or postal costs 

clearly 

than 

Art. 5.2 
Art. 6 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive  

Annex I, No. 20 
Art. 6 
Art. 7 

  E-Commerce Directive 

Art. 6 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Annex I, No. 20 
Art. 6 
Art 7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Practices relate to… 

Problematic practice 

Legal framework 

10. Occurrence free trial 

charges 

11. Paid subscription after 

free trial  

12. Occurrence subscription 

charges 

than 

When  charges  are  unclear,  credit  card  is 
automatically  charged,  and  charges  of 
any  type  are  requested  during  the  free 
trial.  This  includes  delivery  costs/final 
that  which  was 
price  higher 
displayed 
When  engagement  in  paid  subscription 
after  free  trial  happens  automatically 
without  reminder,  there  are  unsolicited 
packages,  or  it  is  not  made  sufficiently 
clear.  This  can  lead  the  consumer  to  be 
unaware  they  have  subscribed  for  a  paid 
service 

When  these  subscription  charges  are 
unclear,  credit  cards  are  automatically 
charged,  or  information  about  charges  is 
hard  to  find,  hard  to  understand,  or  not 
available 

13. Clarity information 

charges 

When  information  on  charges  is  hard  to 
find, hard to understand or not available 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Annex I, No. 20 
Art. 6 
Art. 7.4 (e) 

  Consumer rights Directive 

Art. 22 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art 6.1 
Art. 8 
Art. 22 
Art. 27 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 
Annex I, No. 29 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1  
Art. 8 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8 
Art. 22 

  Payment Services Directive 

Art. 54.1 
Art. 60 
Art. 62 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Practices relate to… 

Problematic practice 

Legal framework 

14. Clarity information start 

and end dates 

When information on start and end dates 
is hard to find, hard to understand or not 
available 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

15. Clarity information on 

duration  

When information on the duration of paid 
subscription  is  hard  to  find,  hard  to 
understand or not available 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8 

16. Clarity information on 
terms and conditions 

17. Framing-in strategies 

information 

When 
conditions 
understand or not available 

is  hard  to 

on 

terms 

and 
find,  hard  to 

False  statements  about  the  product  or 
service,  such  as  false  statements  about 
limited  time  left,  limited  quantities  left, 
testimonials,  benefits  claims,  use  of 
known  brands  to  endorse  credibility, 
describing  the  product/service  as  ‘free’ 
when it is not 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

  E-Commerce Directive 

Art. 10.3 

  Unfair Contract Terms Directive 

Art. 5 

  Consumer Rights Directive  

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Annex I, No. 7 
Art. 6 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Annex I, No. 17 
Annex I, No. 19 
Annex I, No. 20 
Annex I, No. 31 

  Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation 

Art. 3  
Art. 5.1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Practices relate to… 

Problematic practice 

Legal framework 

18. Timing to cancel or 

withdraw trial 

19. Procedure to cancel or 

withdraw trial 

20. Timing to cancel or 

withdraw subscription 

When  it  is  unclear  when  consumers  can 
withdraw from free trial, or within a time 
window that is shorter  than the free trial 
(which 
difficulties 
lead 
can 
withdrawing or cancelling) 

to 

the  procedure 

When 
to  cancel  or 
withdraw  from  the  free  trial  is  to  return 
the  package  sealed,  or 
to  pay  a 
cancellation fee, or when the procedure is 
unclear  (which  can  lead  to  difficulties 
withdrawing or cancelling) 

When  consumers  can  cancel  or  withdraw 
from  paid  subscription  only  after  a 
certain  amount  of  payments  or  when  is 
unclear  (which  can  lead  to  difficulties 
withdrawing or cancelling) 

21. Procedure to cancel or 
withdraw subscription 

the  procedure 

When 
to  cancel  or 
withdraw  from  paid  subscription  is  to 
return  the  package  sealed,  or  to  pay  a 
cancellation fee, or when the procedure is 
unclear  (which  can  lead  to  difficulties 
withdrawing or cancelling) 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8.2  
Art. 8.4 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8.2  
Art. 8.4 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8.2  
Art. 8.4 
Art. 9 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8.2  
Art. 8.4 
Art. 9 
Art. 14.2 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

22. Delivery of products or 
services that were not 
ordered (i.e. inertia 
selling) 

When  consumers  receive  products  or 
subscription  services  which  were  not 
ordered.  

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 27 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Annex I, No. 29 
Art. 8 

 
 
Practices relate to… 

Problematic practice 

Legal framework 

23. Aggressive debt 

collection 

stalking,  or 
Persistent  harassment, 
threats in order to enforce a (contractual) 
obligation  to  pay  a  debt,  whereas  these 
actions  are  not  based  on  an  executable 
judgement  or  not  performed  by  legal 
authorities allowed to do so 

24 Quality or value of 
products/services  

25. Spamming 

Receiving  products/services  that  are  of 
no  use/value  or  receiving  products  or 
services  of  lower  quality  than  advertised 
(or not functional) 

Showing  advertisements  or 
sending 
unrequested  e-mails  with  advertising, 
that  are  not  presented  as  commercial 
advertisements  (e.g.  pop-ups  of 
‘an 
individual’  on  Facebook  or  ‘informative’ 
posts on Twitter) 
Sending  commercial  e-mails  without 
consent of the addressee (opt-in) 
Sending commercial e-mails without opt-
out possibility 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 8  
Art. 9 

  Privacy  Directive  (Data  Protection  Directive) 

95/46 
Art. 14 

  E-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC 

Art. 13 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive  

Annex I, No. 29 
Annex I, No. 22 

  Consumer Sales Directive  

Art. 2.1 

  Unfair Commercial Practices 

Art. 6  
Art. 7 

  E-Commerce Directive  

Art. 6  
Art. 7 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6.7 
Annex I, No. 11 
Annex I, No. 22 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

4.2.  Problematic practices in the three typologies of business models 

The  different  types  of  business  models  identified  in  the  previous  chapter  are  associated 
with certain types of malpractices that were outlined in the table in the previous section. 
In  particular,  the  focus  is  placed  on  the  practices  that  are  present  before  the  time  of 
taking up a free trial or subscription. This section thus highlights a few examples of good, 
grey zone and illegal practices that are generally associated with each business model of 
free trials.10  

Whilst it may appear that there is a simple dichotomy between legal and illegal practices, 
in reality there are free trials where traders may be deceiving or misleading consumers in 
ways that the illegality of these practices is not immediately apparent. For example, there 
are ways in which a free trial could be considered legal, such as including the terms and 
conditions in small text at the end of a webpage which meets the legal requirements, but 
could still be considered infringing formal legal requirements or misleading due to the fact 
that this information is unclear, hidden or in fine print11 and thus making them difficult to 
read for an average consumer. Furthermore, some practices may be considered a breach 
of  EU  law,  but  have  not  yet  been  subject  to  case  law  and  therefore  the  legality  of  the 
practice has not yet been fully tested and can only be alleged. In these cases, where the 
illegality is not apparent upfront, practices are described as ‘grey zone’ practices.  

4.2.1.

  Problematic practices in typology 1: health supplements and cosmetics 

free samples & club membership 

This typology encompasses the business models that traders use when offering free trials 
of health supplements and cosmetics. Within this typology there are three broad types of 
business models. Within each business model it is possible to identify a few examples of 
good, grey zone and illegal practices. These are outlined in what follows. 

10 More details on this identification of practices can be found in Annex 11 (and Annex 8). 
11  An  example  of  this  is  the  offer  of  a  free  trial  of  Amazon’s  Prime  delivery  service  being  banned  by  the  UK 
Advertising Authority (ASA). The ASA said that a paid subscription starting automatically at the end of the 
trial was a commitment and a significant condition of the free offer and should, therefore, be made clear to 
consumers.  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

1.  Free samples as a marketing tool 

  Good  practice:  consumers  are  explicitly  asked  to  give  their  consent  to  receive 
promotional  materials;  consumers  can  easily  opt  out  (object  and  unsubscribe)  of 
receiving  promotional  materials  and  newsletters  by  email  or  post.  The  use  of 
personal  data  is  clearly  described  so  that  the  consumer  can  take  an  informed 
decision and give or withhold consent. 

  Grey zone practice: consumers cannot easily opt out (object and unsubscribe) of 
receiving  promotional materials  and  newsletters  by  email  or  post;  information  on 
how to opt out (object and unsubscribe) is difficult to find. 

  Illegal practice: consumers cannot opt out (object and unsubscribe) of receiving 
promotional materials and newsletters by email or post; opting out (the possibility 
to object and unsubscribe) is impossible for a consumer or the consumer is misled. 

2.  Free samples in return for product reviews 

  Good  practice:  (1)  the  way  traders  select  product  testers  is  transparent;  (2) 
product  testers  are  able  to  check  the  accuracy  of  their  product  review  prior  to 
publication;  and  (3)  product  testers  can  opt  out  (object  and  unsubscribe)  easily 
from receiving promotional materials from the trader or its trading partners. 

  Grey  zone  practice:  (1)  there  is  limited  transparency  on  how  traders  select 
product testers; (2) it is unclear whether testers are able to check the accuracy of 
their reviews before publication or challenge what is published. 

  Illegal  practice:  personal  information  is  asked  beyond  what  is  necessary  to 

ascertain whether a person qualifies as a product tester. 

3.  Club membership from day zero 

  Good  practice:  (1)  it  is  stated  clearly  on  the  front  page  that  consumers  are 
signing up for a membership; (2) it is stated clearly that consumers have the right 
to cancel the membership within a specific time window; and (3) there is an easy 
and well communicated cancellation procedure. 

  Grey  zone  practice:  (1)  traders  try  to  obfuscate  the  fact  that  consumers  are 
engaging  in  a  membership,  but  the  general  presentation  is  considered  not 
misleading for the consumer, (2) the details of the membership and possibility of 
back charges are provided but only in the small print of the Terms and Conditions, 
often on a different webpage, but it is not considered unclear or misleading for the 
consumer, and (3) trial cancellation is  clearly described and possible but  requires 
specific  steps  by  the  consumer  e.g.  returning  the  product  with  a  Return 
Merchandise  Authorisation  number  obtained  from  the  trader,  but  overall  not 
misleading, unclear or impossible in practice for the consumer. 
Illegal practice: (1) traders obfuscate the fact that consumers are engaging in a 
membership, misleading the consumer and the general presentation is considered 
misleading  (i.e.  lack  of  information,  information  impossible  to  read,  information 
provided  in  a  foreign  language,  etc.),  (2)  the  details  of  the  membership  and 
possibility  of  back  charges  are  hidden  in  the  small  print  of  the  Terms  and 
Conditions,  often  on  a  different  webpage  and  it  is  considered  misleading  for  the 
consumer,  and  (3)  trial  cancellation  is  cumbersome,  misleading,  unclear  or 
impossible in practice; the cancellation requirements cannot be reasonably fulfilled 
by the consumer. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

4.2.2.

  Problematic practices in typology 2: dating services, freemium & advertising 

This  typology  encompasses  the  business  models  that  traders  use  when  offering  free 
subscriptions to online dating services. Within this typology there are two broad types of 
business models within which it is possible to identify a few examples of good, grey zone 
and illegal practices. These are outlined in what follows. 

1.  Advertising-supported free sites: 

  Good  practice:  consumers  can  easily  withdraw  from  the  dating  website  and 

delete their profile. 

  Grey  zone  practice:  consumers  cannot  easily  withdraw  from  the  dating  website 
and  delete  their  profile:  withdrawal  and  profile  deleting  functionality is  difficult  to 
find for a consumer.  

  Illegal practice: consumers cannot withdraw from the dating website and delete 
their profile: it is impossible for a consumer to withdraw and delete their profile. 

2.  Freemium: 

  Good practice: (1) it is made explicit upfront that, when and how the consumer 
will  transit  from  the  free  trial  to  a  paid  subscription,  and  (2)  the  key  features  of 
the  trial  and  following  paid  subscription  are  clearly  stated  on  the  sign  up  page 
(price, duration of the contract, etc.). 

  Illegal practice: (1) the consumer is automatically engaged in a paid subscription 
after a free trial, without making this explicit upfront and (2) many of the relevant 
details associated with the free trial are obfuscated in the small print of the Terms 
and  Conditions  (e.g.  the  duration  of  the  free  trial,  the  cancellation  time  window 
and the cancellation procedure). 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

4.2.3.

  Problematic practices in typology 3: cloud-based backup and video/music 

streaming, freemium & reliance on consumer inertia 

This typology encompasses the business models that traders use when offering free trials 
and  subscriptions  to  cloud  based  backup  services  and  video/music  streaming  services. 
Within  this  typology  there  are  two  broad  types  of  business  models  within  which  it  is 
possible  to  identify  a  few  examples  of  good,  grey  zone  and  illegal  practices.  These  are 
outlined in what follows. 

1.  Consumer inertia reliant free trials: 

  Good practice: (1) consumers are alerted (often by email) a few days before the 
end  of  the  free  trial  that  the  end  of  the  free  trial  is  approaching,  and  (2) 
consumers are alerted (often by email) before charging each paid subscription.  
  Grey zone: (1) consumers are clearly informed that the order concerns a trial and 
a  subsequent  subscription  but  they  are  automatically  enrolled  into  the  paid 
subscription after the free trial without further notice, and (2) traders do not make 
any  effort  to  alert  the  consumer  about  periodic  charges  (on  their  credit  cards, 
PayPal or other)..  

  Illegal  practice:  The  withdrawal,  subscription  period  and  condition 

for 
terminating  it,  or  the  payment  arrangement  are  not  clearly  provided  before  the 
consumer  signs  up,  not  only  in  the  Terms  and  Conditions,  but  also  the  general 
presentation  of  the  offer  fails  to  sufficiently  and  prominently  communicate  these 
terms when signing up. 

2.  Freemium: 

  Good practice: (1) it is made explicit upfront that the consumer will transit from 
the  free  trial  to  a  paid  subscription,  and  (2)  the  key  features  (e.g.  total  price, 
duration) of the trial and following paid subscription are clearly stated on the sign 
up page. 

  Illegal practice: (1) the consumer is automatically engaged in a paid subscription 
after  the  free  trial,  without  making  this  explicit  upfront  and  (2)  many  of  the 
relevant  details  associated  with  the  free  trial  are  obfuscated  in  the  small  print  of 
the Terms and Conditions (e.g. the duration of the free trial, the cancellation time 
window and the cancellation procedure). 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

5. State  of  play  of  problematic  practices  regarding  free  trials 

and subscription traps 

The  previous  chapters  outlined  what  typologies  of  business  models  use  free  trials,  and 
what practices defined a free trial as potentially illegal. This chapter highlights the extent 
to  which  free  trials  use  problematic  practices  and  the  problems  that  consumers 
experience as a result of these practices.  

In  order  to  map  the  current  state  of  play,  several  analyses  are  considered.  A  review  of 
over  900  websites,  apps  and  social  media  accounts  identifies  the  extent  to  which 
problematic practices occur with free trials at the point of purchase/subscription (i.e. prior 
to  a  consumer  making  a  choice  to  order  a  free  product  or  subscription).  These 
problematic  practices  relate  to  the  first  21  practices  outlined  in  Table  2  in  the  previous 
chapter.  A  stakeholder  survey  of  52  stakeholders  outlines  the  degree  to  which 
stakeholders  received  complaints  relating  to  free  trials  and  in  which  way  they  interact 
with online traders who offer free trials and subscriptions online in a misleading or illegal 
manner. A consumer survey of 24,166 online consumers in Europe outlines the extent to 
which  consumers  perceive  they  encounter  problems  with  free  trials.  Primarily,  these 
experiences relate to those practices which occur following purchase or subscription to a 
free  trial.  A  mystery  shopping  analysis  of  326  websites  sheds  light  on  the  real  life 
experience  of  the  complete  consumer  experience  from  the  point  of  ordering,  through  to 
returning or cancelling the free trial or subscription. These analyses highlight the degree 
to  which  free  trials  include  problematic  practices.  Finally,  the  behavioural  experiment 
does  not  highlight  the  degree  to  which  free  trials  include  misleading  practices  or  any 
other illegal practices, or how many consumers fall victim to these. However, it does shed 
light  on  why  consumers  fall  victim  to  these  practices  in  the  free  trials.  Therefore,  this 
chapter also includes this analysis explaining the reasons behind the current state of play.  

Again, the starting point is the consumer journey, in which the consumer can look  for a 
product or service online or is attracted by online traders to order a free trial. How is the 
consumer  attracted  to  free  trials,  where  does  he  find  them,  does  he  has  any  concerns 
when being an online customer?  

The  second  and  third  section  relate  to  the  problematic  practices  associated  with  free 
trials, studying both the factual incidence using the website screening data as well as the 
perceived incidence using consumer and stakeholder survey data.  

Next,  the  potential  detriment  for  consumers  and  the  problems  that  are  caused  by 
misleading free trials and subscription traps are discussed in the last section, focussing on 
the post-trial or subscription phase and the type of problems. 

31 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

5.1.  The digital consumer journey  

To put the problem of misleading free trials and subscription traps in context, this section 
looks first at the degree to which consumers order free trials and subscriptions and when 
they  do  so,  what  concerns  they  have.  This  also  sheds  light  on  the  degree  to  which  the 
particular  problem  of  misleading  free  trials  is  down  to  the  lack  of  awareness  amongst 
consumers. In order to understand this stage of the consumer journey and the extent to 
which  consumers  can  be  affected  by  misleading  free  trials,  it  is  important  to  know  how 
prevalent ordering free trials is in Europe.  

Across the EU28 66% of the online population12 ordered a free trial online in the previous 
year. The consumer survey also sheds light on the degree to which consumers in Europe 
order  free  trials  or  subscriptions  in  the  different  product  and  service  categories.  This  is 
illustrated in the following figure.  

Figure 5 Ordering free trials in the last year per product category (EU28 results) 

Source: consumer survey. N = 23,393 

12 Source: consumer survey. N = 23,393 

32 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

With regard to the four types of products that are of particular interest, the most popular 
category  is  that  of  cosmetics  and  healthcare  products  with  45%  of  the  respondents 
having  ordered  a  free  trial  in  this  product  category  in  the  last  year.  Just  over  a  third  of 
the  respondents  ordered  a  free  trial  of  food  and  health  supplements  in  the  last  year.  A 
similar share of the respondents ordered a free trial of cloud based backup services in the 
previous  year.  The  least  popular  are  free  trials  of  dating  services,  with  around  a  fifth  of 
the respondents having ordered a free trial in the last year. 

According to the consumer survey, online consumers encounter free trials in a variety of 
ways.  There  is  no  single  dominant  approach  which  overshadows  others,  though 
consumers are most likely to find these offers through online pop-up advertisements. This 
is presented in the following figure. 

Figure 6 Places where consumers found free trial (EU28 results) 

Source: consumer survey. N = 14,481 

Just over a quarter of all online consumers found a free trial offer through online pop-up 
advertisements. A further fifth state they found it when looking for the product or service. 
15% of the online consumers encountered the free trial when participating in a contest or 
competition, 13% were on a social media account. Only 4% were  called by the  seller. A 
fifth  of  the  respondents  did  not  know  where  they  had  found  the  offer  for  a  free  trial  or 
subscription.  There  are  some  sociodemographic  differences  in  how  consumers  come 
across  free  trials.  Those  with  a  very  low  education  level  and  those  with  financial 
difficulties more often found a free trial via a pop-up advertisement. Younger consumers 
are more likely to find free trials using their social media accounts in comparison to older 
cohorts.  

Unsurprisingly, consumers make the decision to order the free trial primarily because it is 
something  that  they  can  use  or  want  (46%  of  the  online  consumers  indicate  this  as  a 
reason) or because they believe it is a good offer (35% of the online consumers indicate 
this as a reason). The fact that free trials are limited offers is not a main driver (11% of 
the  online  consumers  indicate  this  as  a  reason).  This  result  from  the  consumer  survey 
was supported by the evidence gathered during the behavioural experiment which found 
that  the  inclusion  of  a  ‘scarcity  text’  (i.e.  indicating  limited  availability  of  the  product  or 
service) did not affect the response of those taking part. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Consumers were asked about a dozen potential concerns they may have when purchasing 
goods or services online. This is reported in the table below. 

Table 3:  Concerns  when  purchasing  products  or  subscribing  for  services  online  (EU28 

results) 

Concern 
Personal data may be misused  
The payment card details may be stolen  
Replacement or repair of a faulty product is not easy  
Returning a product I didn't like and getting reimbursed is not easy  
Wrong or damaged products will be delivered  
Goods sold online might be unsafe/counterfeit  
The quality of the goods/services is not as good as defined  
Long delivery times  
Unsubscribing for a service is not easy 
Products/services will not be delivered at all  
Delivery costs or final price are higher than displayed on website  
My preferred payment method might not be accepted by online sellers  
Customer service is poor  
There is a lower level of consumer protection when buying or 
subscribing online  
I don't trust the terms and conditions I have to agree with online  
Delivery arrangements of online sellers might not be convenient for 
me  
I do not know what my consumer rights are when buying or 
subscribing online  
I don't trust the information provided to me online  
I don't understand the terms and conditions  
Other concerns  
Source: Consumer survey. N = 23,393 

% top 5 concerns 
40% 
35% 
28% 
28% 
27% 
25% 
23% 
19% 
17% 
16% 
16% 
15% 
15% 
11% 

11% 
10% 

9% 

9% 
6% 
3% 

It  is  interesting  to  compare  these  concerns  of  consumers  who  previously  ordered  a  free 
trial  and  had  experienced  a  problem  with  those  who  did  not.  Concerns  that  are  more 
often  mentioned  by  consumers  who  already  experienced  problems  ordering  free  trials 
are: 

  The concern that unsubscribing for a service is not easy (22% compared to 15%) 
  The concern that terms and conditions are not trusted (14% compared to 9%) 
  The concern that terms and conditions are not understood (10% compared to 5%) 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

One important element when entering into a free trial or subscription is the attention that 
is given to the terms and conditions of the offer.  

Figure 7:  Extent to which terms and conditions of online traders are read (EU28 results) 

Source: Consumer survey. N = 23,393 

Overall,  only  a  fifth  of  the  online  population  in  the  EU28  always  read  the  terms  and 
conditions  of  online  traders.  Furthermore,  amongst  those  who  do  so,  a  third  consider 
them  difficult  to  understand.  The  primary  reason  behind  the  fact  that  the  majority  of 
online consumers in Europe do not read terms and conditions is that they find it too time-
consuming. These results indicate that the perceived difficulty in reading or understanding 
the  terms  is  not  the  main  barrier  preventing  consumers  from  reading  or  understanding 
terms and conditions. Rather, it is that they are considered too lengthy and therefore too 
time-consuming  for  consumers  to  routinely  read  them.  Unsurprisingly,  consumers  who 
had previously encountered a problem with an online free trial are more likely to read the 
terms and conditions than those who had not. However, other sociodemographic are not 
associated  with  a  higher  or  lower  likelihood  to  read  the  terms  and  conditions  meaning 
that all walks of life are just as likely to neglect this aspect of ordering a free trial.  

Prior to ordering a free trial, another important aspect beyond the terms and conditions is 
knowledge about how to stop the service they are subscribing for. Knowledge on how to 
stop  a  subscription  to  an  online  service  is  critical  to  avoid  enrolling  in  more  than  the 
consumer  bargained  for.  Whilst  the  majority  of  consumers  believe  they  know  how  to  do 
this,  it is  only  just  over  half  (58%)  that  say  they  look  into  how  to  stop  the  subscription 
before they actually subscribe. The remaining 42% either never look into the rules (20%) 
or  look  into  the  rules  only  after  they  have  already  subscribed  (22%).  Consumers  seem 
slightly  more  aware  of  how  to  return  products,  with  64%  looking  into  how  to  do  this 
before they have ordered the product rather than waiting until after the purchase (23%). 
Nevertheless,  a  noteworthy  percentage  (36%)  either  never  looks  into  how  to  do  this 
(13%), or only does so after they have placed their order (23%). 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

The  experience  of  the  consumers  can  be  typified  in  the  following  quote  by  one  of  the 
stakeholders consulted during this study: 

“Consumers see an ad on Facebook, are referred to the traders’ website and 
see  the  trial  product  they  can  order  by  only  paying  for  the  delivery  costs. 
Never  in  this  offer  is  it  mentioned  that  consumer  agree  to  subsequent 
products nor are they informed about the costs involved of these subsequent 
products.  Consumers  are  of  the  opinion  that  they  only  apply  for  a  trial 
product and this is  a  onetime  offer. Apparently this important information is 
hidden  in  the  terms  and  conditions.  However  for  the  consumer  this  is  not 
clear  when  entering  into  an  agreement  and  mentioning  the  subscription  in 
the  terms  and  conditions  is  not  sufficient.  Furthermore  directly  on  the 
Homepage  of  the  traders  website  consumers  can  fill  in  their  personal  data, 
when they have done so they tick the box for the trial product and press the 
button "Buy Now" and have directly contracted and do not see an overview of 
what they are about to purchase. Afterwards sometimes also additional costs 
(delivery) are added.”  

(ECC The Netherlands) 

5.2.  Problematic practices at the point of ordering a free trial 

The  above  outlines  the  degree  to  which  online  consumers  order  free  trials,  where  they 
encounter  free  trial  offers  and  the  reasons  that  online  consumers  in  Europe  choose  to 
take  up  an  offer  as  well  as  the  concerns  they  have  about  doing  so.  However,  to  what 
extent are free trial offers actually ‘misleading’? As described in the previous section there 
are  a  range  of  problematic  practices  associated  with  online  free  trial  offers.  In  order  to 
establish  to  what  degree  free  trials  are  misleading  a  website  screening  exercise  of  over 
900  websites  estimates  the  extent  to  which  free  trials  might  be  misleading  according  to 
the  assessment  of  this  consultant.  Given  that  this  was  a  screening  exercise,  that  is  no 
free  trials  were  ordered  during  this  exercise,  the  analysis  only  looks  at  questionable 
practices  that  were  found  at  the  point  of  ordering  the  free  trial.  Therefore,  practices 
relating to issues that occur after taking up a free trial such as aggressive debt collecting, 
are  not  included  in  the  website  screening.  These  are  discussed  in  a  following  section 
based on the consumer survey and the mystery shopping exercises.  

The  websites  were  screened  in  relation  to  the  first  21  problematic  practices  identified in 
the  previous  chapter  (see  Table  2).  The  website  screening  analysis  highlights  that  only 
2.7%  of  the  screened  websites  did  not  include  a  single  misleading  practice.  In  general, 
the  screening  results  of  this  study  show  that  half  of  the  free  trials  and  subscriptions 
include  five  problematic  practices.  None  of  the  screened  websites  offering  free  trials 
included  all  21  misleading  practices.  Nevertheless,  the  maximum  number  of  misleading 
practices found within a single free trial was 16. This is reported in the following table. 

36 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Table 4 Number of problematic practices per free trial  

All 
products 
and 
services 

Health 
care 
products 

Cosmetics 

Dating 
services 

Cloud 
backup 
services 

Audio and 
video 
streaming 
services 

Number of 
problematic 
practices 
per free 
trial 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

2.7% 
8.4% 
9.2% 
10.5% 
8.8% 
9.8% 
8.1% 
8.7% 
8.0% 
7.0% 
7.3% 
3.7% 
3.9% 
2.0% 
1.5% 
0.4% 
0.2% 
Source: Website screening exercise N = 900 websites 

1.5% 
5.5% 
6.0% 
7.0% 
6.0% 
10.0% 
7.0% 
9.0% 
9.0% 
8.0% 
9.5% 
4.5% 
7.5% 
3.5% 
4.5% 
1.0% 
0.5% 

1.6% 
7.5% 
6.4% 
8.6% 
5.4% 
8.0% 
8.6% 
7.5% 
9.1% 
11.8% 
10.7% 
4.8% 
6.4% 
2.1% 
1.1% 
0.0% 
0.5% 

2.2% 
10.2% 
10.2% 
13.4% 
15.1% 
8.1% 
8.6% 
10.2% 
9.1% 
4.8% 
2.7% 
2.7% 
1.1% 
1.1% 
0.0% 
0.5% 
0.0% 

7.0% 
10.9% 
14.0% 
11.6% 
7.8% 
11.6% 
7.8% 
9.3% 
5.4% 
2.3% 
6.2% 
3.9% 
1.6% 
0.8% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 

2.6% 
9.5% 
12.1% 
13.8% 
10.3% 
12.9% 
8.6% 
6.9% 
5.2% 
6.0% 
6.9% 
1.7% 
0.9% 
1.7% 
0.9% 
0.0% 
0.0% 

Looking  at  the  type  of  product/service  (see  Table  4),  the  percentage  of  free  trials  or 
subscriptions  that  did  not  include  a  single  problematic  practice  was  largest  for  cloud 
based  storage  websites  services:  7%  of  these  free  trials  did  not  include  a  single 
problematic  practice.  Free  trials  related  to  healthcare  and  cosmetics  products  are  more 
likely to include a number of possibly misleading free trials practices. A quarter of all free 
trials for healthcare and cosmetics products included ten or more problematic practices.  

These  results  from  the  website  screening  exercise  correspond  to  the  findings  of  the 
stakeholder  survey,  in  which  the  national  authorities  and  enforcement  agencies  were 
questioned.  For  example,  the  Norwegian  Consumer  Ombudsman  investigated  52 
websites, and subsequently identified 49 websites with misleading free trials, especially in 
the  health  and  cosmetics  sector.  Business  organisations  were  also  familiar  with  the 
phenomenon of misleading free trials and subscription traps. 

In  terms  of  the  types  of  problematic  practices  that  are  most  common,  there  are  three 
single practices which were found in more than half of the products and services offered 
via the screened websites/apps/social media pages. These are the following: 

 

 

In  63%  of  the  screened  free  trials  the  trader  could  pass  on  details  to  others 
without  consumers’  consent’,  or  it  was  unclear  whether  the  trader  could  pass  on 
details  to  others  without  consumers’  consent’.  In  the  mystery  shopping  exercise 
31% said that it was not clear how their personal details would be treated.  
In 60% of the screened free trials one or more contact details of the trader (name, 
email address, telephone number, postal address) could not be  found, were false 
or  unclear.  This  appears  to  be  less  of  a  problem  during  the  mystery  shopping 
exercise as only 7% found it unclear who was offering the trial offer. However, the 
mystery  shoppers  were  ordinary  consumers  who  may  have  thought  it  was  clear 
who  was  offering  the  free  trial  without  looking  for  the  specific  details  that  were 

37 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

 

used  in  the  website  screening  exercise.  This  issue  played  out  once  mystery 
shoppers  tried  to  cancel  their  subscription  as  27%  could  not  find  any  contact 
information on the website and 54% that attempted to contact the supplier did not 
succeed.  
In  53%  of  the  screened  free  trials  traders  used  framing-in  strategies  to  engage 
consumers  in  the  free  trial  (such  as  limited  time  left,  limited  quantities  left, 
testimonials,  benefits  claims,  …).  However,  amongst  consumers  involved  in  the 
mystery  shopping  exercise  this  was  less  obvious  to  them.  Only  5%  assessed  the 
free trial as including claims that were unauthorised or were missing evidence.  

Several  problematic  practices  concern  information  on  the  duration  of  the  trial,  the 
subscription  and  how  and  when  the  consumer  can  withdraw  or  cancel.  Jointly  these 
problematic  practices  are  highly  prevalent.  The  procedure  to  withdraw  was  the  single 
issue  that  consumers  found  to  be  most  problematic  when  assessing websites  during  the 
mystery  shopping  exercise.  Almost  half  (47%)  had  difficulties  finding  information 
pertaining  to  what  they  were  supposed  to  do  when  they  choose  not  to  purchase  the 
product/service  after  the  trial.  This  is  a  particularly  important  aspect  given  that  the 
consumer  survey  found  that  58%  look  into  how  to  unsubscribe  before  they  order  a  free 
trial.  This  means  that  the  majority  may  look  into  the  rules  of  unsubscribing,  however 
these procedures are unclear in 43% of websites screened and 47% of mystery shoppers 
had difficulties finding the information they need to unsubscribe.  

Table 5 Incidence of misleading practices  
Practice 
Passing on consumer’s personal details 
Trader’s contacts  
Framing-in strategies 
Clarity information on duration  
Procedure to withdraw trial 
Procedure to withdraw subscription 
Clarity information start and end dates 
Clarity information charges 
Timing to withdraw subscription 
Timing to withdraw trial 
Clarity information on terms and conditions 
Trader’s country  
Credit card charges  
Paid subscription after free trial  
Discounting practices 
Occurrence subscription charges 
Type of free trial charges 
Occurrence free trial charges 
Content of free trial  
Consumer’s personal details  
Promoting free trial  
Source: Website screening exercise N = 900 websites 

Incidence 
63% 
60% 
53% 
45% 
43% 
43% 
41% 
40% 
39% 
35% 
25% 
19% 
19% 
19% 
14% 
11% 
9% 
7% 
5% 
4% 
2% 

38 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

The  magnitude  of  these  problematic  practices  varies  considerably  when  examining  free 
trials  and  subscriptions  for  specific  products  and  services.  That  is,  within  each  product 
category,  some  misleading  practices  are  more  prevalent  in  comparison  to  other  product 
categories.  

Looking  at  the  prevalence  of  certain  practices  found  in  the  free  trials  of  cosmetics,  the 
following misleading practices are more common: 

  Personal  details  of  consumers  could  be  passed  on  or  it  was  unclear  if  personal 
details  could  be  passed  on  in  71%  of  the  free  trials  of  cosmetics  (compared  to 
63% of all products and services) 

  The procedure to withdraw from the free trial was unclear in 59% of the free trials 

of cosmetics (compared to 43% of all products and services) 

  What was necessary to withdraw from the paid subscription was unclear in 56% of 

the free trials of cosmetics (compared to 43% of all products and services) 

  When consumers could withdraw from the paid subscription was unclear in 49% of 

the free trials of cosmetics (compared to 39% of all products and services)  

  The  timing  of  withdrawing  was  unclear  in  46%  of  the  free  trials  of  cosmetics 

(compared to 35% of all products and services)  

In  terms  of  free  trials  for  health  supplements,  the  following  problematic  practices  are 
more common: 

 

In 72% of the free trials of health supplements, framing-in techniques were used 
(compared to 53% of all products and services)  

  What  is  necessary  to  withdraw  from  the  paid  subscription  was  unclear  in  56%  of 
the  free  trials  of  health  supplements  (compared  to  43%  of  all  products  and 
services) 

  There was no clarity about the duration of the paid subscription in 56% of the free 

trials of health supplements (compared to 45% of all products and services) 

  There was no clarity of the terms and conditions in 35% of the free trials of health 

supplements (compared to 25% of all products and services) 

Dating services typically have a higher incidence of the following problematic practices: 

  Traders  contact  details  were  lacking,  unclear  or  false  in  75%  of  the  free 
subscriptions for dating services (compared to 60% of all products and services) 

Looking  at  free  subscriptions  for  audio  and  video  streaming  services,  the  following 
problematic practices are more common: 

  Credit cards could be charged beyond delivery in 33% of the free subscriptions for 

audio and video streaming (compared to 19% of all products and services) 

  Automatically  renewing  without  reminding  or  an  unclear  engagement  in  a  paid 
subscription  after  the  free  trial  was  present  in  31%  of  the  free  subscriptions  for 
audio  and  video  streaming  services  (compared  to  19%  of  all  products  and 
services) 

39 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Another  important  consideration  is  whether  misleading  free  trials  are  associated  with 
more or less popular websites. Presumably, if they are found to be associated with more 
popular  websites,  the  number  of  consumers  being  subject  to  misleading  free  trials  is 
higher. Conversely, if it is primarily a problem amongst less popular websites misleading 
free  trials  are  unlikely  to  affect  very  many  consumers.  The  website  screening  analysis 
finds  that  more  popular  websites  are  less  likely  to  have  problematic  practices,  but  that 
this  is  only  significant  for  two  product  categories  –  dating  and  cloud-based  backup 
services.  In  the  other  product  categories  (i.e.  health  supplements,  cosmetics  and 
audio/video streaming sites) problematic practices are just as prevalent amongst popular 
sources  as  less  popular  ones.  Therefore,  in  those  product  categories  many  consumers 
may  fall  victim  to  these  problematic  practices  given  that  they  are  just  as  likely  to 
encounter  problematic  practices  on  popular  sources  as  they  would  be  on  more  ‘obscure’ 
sources.  

5.3.  Problematic practices after ordering a free trial  

The  previous  section  indicates  to  what  degree  websites,  apps  and  social  media  pages 
include problematic practices (in accordance with the legal framework set out in Chapter 
4).  That  analysis  was  based  on  problematic  practices  at  the  point  of  ordering  the  free 
trial.  This  section  now  turns  to  consumer  experiences  after  having  placed  the  order  in 
order to understand the degree to which consumers experience any detriment as a result 
of having done so.  

As  previously  mentioned,  66%  of  the  online  consumers  in  the  EU28  had  ordered  a  free 
trial  online.  Of  these  consumers  who  had  ordered  a  free  trial  21%  experienced  one  or 
more problems. Overall, this means that of all online consumers within the EU28, 14% of 
them  had  been  affected  by  a  problem  caused  by  a  free  trial  online.  Luxembourgers 
reported the least problems (7%); Romanians reported the highest incidence of problems 
(32%). Figure 8 visualises these country results. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the 
number of respondents is limited for the smaller countries. 

40 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 8  Proportion of respondents experiencing one or more problems with online free 

trials and subscriptions (country results) 

Source: Consumer Survey.  

Interestingly,  there  are  some  sociodemographic  characteristics  that  are  associated  with 
encountering problems with free trials. This indicates that there may be some profiles of 
consumers  that  are  more  susceptible  to  becoming  victims  of  misleading  free  trials.  For 
example,  those  experiencing  problems  with  free  trials  are  more  likely  to  be  male, 
younger, living in urban surroundings and those who live in difficult financial situations.  

In  terms  of  the  product  categories  that  are  associated  with  more  problematic  free  trials 
according to consumers, these are predominantly cosmetics and health care products.  

41 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 9  Proportion  ordering  and  proportion  experiencing  one  or  more  problems  with 

ordering free trials and subscriptions by product group (EU 28 results) 

Source: Consumer Survey. N (ordered free trial) = 15,332 N (problem (all)) = 3,136 

The  following  table  highlights  the  types  of  problems  that  consumers  said  they  have 
encountered after ordering a free trial. Most striking is that the consumer survey echoes 
the  other  research  exercises  which  show  that the  ability  to  unsubscribe  is  a  problem  for 
consumers.  According  to  the  stakeholders  that  were  familiar  with  misleading  free  trials 
and subscription traps,  the main problems were poor awareness  of  consumers that they 
had  entered  into  a  paid  subscription,  and  consumers  experiencing  difficulties  when  they 
wanted  to  unsubscribe.  A  significant  share  of  screened  websites  (43%)  had  unclear 
procedures to unsubscribe and the biggest problem for mystery shoppers (47%) was that 
they  had  difficulties  finding  information  about  what  they  were  supposed  to  do  if  they 
chose not to purchase the product or service after the free trial.  

Similarly,  a  prominent problem  is  the  inability  for  consumers  to  return  sample  products. 
34% of consumers who had a problem with a free trial reported this as being the specific 
issue they experienced. The mystery shopping exercise highlights the chain of events that 
leads to this particular difficulty. The first mechanism is that consumers often experience 
a delay in receiving the product in the first place (20% of those who had a problem with a 
free trial according to the consumer survey and 70% of mystery shoppers did not receive 
the  product  within  5  days).  However,  the  ability  to  find  contact  details  to  highlight  that 
the  product  had  not  yet  been  received,  and  to  cancel  the  order,  was  difficult.  60%  of 
websites  screened  had  problematic  practices  with  regard  to  the  trader’s  contact  details 
and  54%  of  mystery  shoppers  attempting  to  contact  a  supplier  did  not  succeed. 
Therefore,  the  ability  to  return  the  good  (or  simply  cancel  the  order)  is  most  likely  a 
consequence of not being able to contact the seller.  

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Table 6 Type of problems encountered by consumers 
Problems that occurred 

I was not able to unsubscribe / I had difficulties to 
unsubscribe 

I wanted to return the sample product but couldn’t  

It took a long time before the sample product was 
delivered  

I was not aware that I had subscribed for a service  

The seller did not replace or repair a faulty sample 
product  

The product/service was never delivered/provided  

Customer service was poor  

I was threatened with debt collectors if I would not 
pay  

The cheap offer is available for free elsewhere online  

Sample product was of lower quality than advertised  

I was sent products that I did not order  

Delivery costs or final price was higher than displayed 

The wrong sample product was delivered 

I was not able to contact the seller/provider 

I was harassed by debt collectors 

I could not access the service  

Other problems 

My payment card details were stolen  

My means of payment was refused by the seller  

My personal data was misused 

I could not access the seller's website or only limited 
content was displayed to me 

I got extra charges on my credit card without my 
consent 

The terms and conditions were not respected by the 
seller/provider 

Proportion of 
those who 
ordered a free 
trial 

Proportion of 
those who 
experienced a 
problem 

7% 

5% 

4% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

34% 

22% 

20% 

18% 

15% 

15% 

14% 

14% 

12% 

11% 

11% 

10% 

10% 

10% 

10% 

10% 

6% 

5% 

5% 

5% 

5% 

5% 

4% 

I could not get my data back when closing my 
account  
Source:  Consumer  survey.  N  (Proportion  of  those  who  ordered  a  free  trial)  =  15,332.  N  (Proportion  of  those 
who experienced a problem) = 3,136 

1% 

4% 

43 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

It  is  interesting  to  consider  the  concerns  that  were  expressed  by  all  online  consumers 
when  ordering  products  and  services  online  and  compare  these  to  the  actual  problems 
that  online  consumers  encountered  with  free  trials  specifically.  The  biggest  concerns  of 
online  consumers  when  making  online  purchases  are  that  their  personal  data  may  be 
misused,  their  payment  card  details  may  be  stolen  or  replacing,  repairing  or  returning 
products  is  not  easy.  Whereas,  the  most  common  problem  that  online  consumers 
experienced  following  their  engagement  in  a  free  trial  offer  were  issues  unsubscribing 
from the service (7% of those who engaged in free trials reported this issue). 

Online  consumers  are  more  often  concerned  with  issues  that  in  reality  are  not  so  often 
encountered  after  having  ordered  a  free  trial.  35%  of  the  consumers  expressed  their 
concern  that  payment  card  details  might  be  stolen  when  purchasing  a  good  or  service 
online. This is a problem experienced by less than a percent of consumers who take up a 
free trial offer (that is, credit card details being stolen may be something that happens as 
a  consequence  of  other  activities  online,  such  as  purchasing  other  types  of  goods  or 
services beyond free trials). Nevertheless, the  mystery  shopping exercise highlights that 
even though consumers are subscribing or ordering a product that should cost 0 euro; a 
non-negligible  minority  (22%)  were  asked  for  credit  card  information.  This  may  fuel 
concerns that their payment card details may be stolen.  

The  main  concern  consumers’  mention  is  the  misuse  of  personal  data:  40%  of  all 
consumers  expressed  their  concern  about  this  malpractice.  In  reality,  this  is  rarely 
recognised  as  an  issue  with  free  trials.  This  is  supported  by  the  number  of  complaints 
stakeholders  receive  from  consumers,  which  are  only  seldom  related  to  payment  card 
details being stolen and the misuse of personal data.  

Consumers are further more concerned with the quality of the product or service. 23% of 
consumers  expressed  their  concern  that  the  quality  might  not  be  as  good  as  defined 
online. In reality, this is only a problem for 2% of consumers who ordered a free trial.  

Next, it is interesting to note the specific problem related to terms and conditions: 1% of 
those  who  ordered  a  free  trial  subsequently  had  a  problem  relating  to  the  terms  and 
conditions  that  are  not  respected  by  the  seller  or  provider  of  the  service.  The  consumer 
survey has already shown that consumers do not always read these terms and conditions 
(most often because they believe that reading them is just too time-consuming) and may 
therefore be unaware of them. The problem of terms and conditions not being honoured 
may  be,  therefore,  higher  than  reported  by  consumers.  Indeed,  one  in  ten  stakeholders 
mention this misleading practice and during the website screening, it became clear that in 
fact,  25%  of  the  free  trials  include  terms  and  conditions  that  are  not  clear  enough.  The 
other explanation lies in the possibility that the lack of terms and conditions being clear or 
consumers  reading  them  does  not  actually,  in  turn,  lead  to  problems  with  free  trials. 
Rather,  it  is  other  aspects,  such  as  being  able  to  unsubscribe,  that  lead  to  the  biggest 
detriment for consumers.  

Another  severe  problem  is  the  use  of  aggressive  debt  collection  methods  by  traders 
requesting customer payment. 3% of consumers states that debt collectors threatened or 
harassed them when they encountered a problem related to their free trial.  Looking only 
at  the  proportion  of  problems  that  consumer’s  experience,  10%  of  the  problems  are  in 
relation  to  aggressive  debt  collection.  This  proportion  corresponds  to  the  number  of 
complaints that stakeholders receive; this problem is indicated by 13% of stakeholders as 
one of the main problems related to misleading free trials and subscription traps.  

Consumers  can  be  harassed  in  several  other  ways.  Consumers  can  receive  unsolicited 
communication after cancelling a free trial or subscription in the form of spam (postal or 

44 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

online)  mail,  targeted  advertisements  and  nuisance  phone  calls.  The  mystery  shopping 
exercise showed that in 12% of the cases, free trials caused these types of detriment for 
mystery shoppers, of which half relating to an increase in spam email. 

It seems that consumers do encounter misleading free trials (based on the insights from 
the  consumer  survey  and  the  website  screening  exercise),  but  that  they  do  not  always 
complain  to  the  national  enforcement  agencies  and  authorities  (8%  of  those  who 
experienced a problem). In fact, a significant portion (19%) of those  who experienced a 
problem did not take any action at all. For those who took no action, the majority did not 
do  so  as  the  sums  involved  were  too  small  or  they  thought  that  a  satisfactory  solution 
was unlikely. Only 16% of those who took no action felt they did not know how or where 
to  complain  and  an  even  smaller  percentage  (11%)  were  unsure  of  their  rights  as  a 
consumer.  

Primarily, when consumers do complain they go directly to the seller or  service provider 
(43% of those who  experienced a problem took this action).  In all cases the majority of 
those that took that specific action considered it easy to do so, nevertheless this ranges 
from 53% of those who complained to the seller or service provider to 70% of those who 
took the issue to an alternative dispute resolution body.  

Complained to 

Table 7 Actions undertaken by consumers after experiencing a problem with a free trial 
Action (Complaints directed to …) 
Seller or service provider 
Manufacturer 
Police  
Payment company 
Anti-fraud organisation  
Public authority  
Alternative Dispute Resolution body 
Media (social media, tv, radio) 
Court 
Other  
Source: Consumer survey. N = 1,406 

Action considered easy 
53% 
64% 
67% 
53% 
57% 
60% 
70% 
52% 
65% 
/ 

43% 
18% 
12% 
11% 
10% 
8% 
7% 
4% 
3% 
5% 

45 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

The above sections of this chapter highlight that the majority of online consumers take up 
offers  of  free  trials  (66%).  On  the  one  hand,  websites  that  were  screened  suggest  that 
the incidence of problematic practices is high, and a majority of three in four stakeholders 
had been confronted with complaints regarding misleading free trials in the past year. On 
the other hand, a minority of consumers experience negative issues after having ordered 
a free trial online. The mystery shopping exercise also found, that for the free  trials that 
shoppers  were  able  to  participate  in,  problems  were  not  extensive.  Some  reasons 
explaining these patterns include: 

  Online free trials can include problematic practices, but this does not in turn result 

in negative consumer experiences; and/or 

  Online  free  trials  can  include  problematic  practices,  but  this  only  (or  in  the 
majority of  cases)  results in negative consequences  for  consumers when they try 
to  unsubscribe.  As  long  as  consumers  continue  with  the  service  they  do  not 
encounter problems; 

  Online free trials can include misleading practices and other aspects of these sites 
result in lower numbers of consumers participating in them13, and therefore fewer 
consumers  suffer  any  detriment  compared  to  what  might  be  expected  based  on 
the website screening. 

5.4.  Reasons consumers become victim to misleading free trials 

The  above  section  highlights  the  prevalence  of  subscription  traps,  the  tactics  used  to 
entice consumers to enrol in subscriptions, and the experiences of consumers. This study 
also included  a  behavioural  experiment  which investigated  the  hypothesis  that  there  are 
two primary behavioural mechanisms that cause consumers to fall victim to subscription 
traps.  First,  consumers  may  not  realise  that  they  are  signing  up  for  a  subscription. 
Second,  they  may  realise  it  is  a  subscription,  but  are  overconfident  about  whether  they 
will remember to cancel during the relevant cancelation period. Issues with unsubscribing 
were  the  most  prevalent  in  terms  of  the  issues  that  consumers  experienced  following  a 
free trial, therefore the behavioural experiment was designed to investigate whether the 
provision  of  information  helped  to  make  people  more  aware  that  products  were 
subscriptions. Elements were included to assess the role of overconfidence. 

One of the most important measures is the extent to which people noticed the enrolment 
details  of  the  website.  When  the  price  is  salient,  people  were  more  likely  to  notice 
recurring  fees.  The  behavioural  experiment  reveals  that  notices  about  the  subscription 
only mattered when the cost is displayed in large font. For physical products, where the 
cost of the monthly membership was hidden in the small print, about 11% of individuals 
reported  that  they  notice  the  monthly  fees  in  the  baseline  website14.  Even  when  the 
website  design  was  manipulated  to  provide  a  notice  that  signing  up  involved  a 
subscription,  this  did  not  improve  the  likelihood  that  consumers  would  notice  the  fees 
involved.  However,  the  likelihood  of  noticing  the  subscription  fee  more  than  doubled  to 
24%  when  the  subscription  fee  was  stated  explicitly  rather  than  just  notifying  the 
consumer that it is a subscription. 

13 Such as payment restrictions, the fact that these offers often disappear quickly and border restrictions.  
14 The ‘baseline’ were mock websites that were based on the typical design of these websites offering free trials.  
46 

 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

For  digital  products,  where  the  products  tend  to  have  more  information  about  the  price 
displayed  on  the  website,  a  much  larger  proportion  of  individuals  noticed  the  recurring 
fees.  

It  is  worth  noting  that  despite  the  disclosure  of  subscription  price  information  for  the 
physical products; still only 24% of respondents noticed the fee. For the digital products, 
where the subscription information is very large and quite clearly marked, about 42-45% 
of  respondents  noticed  the  fee.  This  is  revealing:  there  is  a  clear  upper  bound  to  the 
protection that disclosure mandates can have. There will always be a significant fraction 
of people who do not pay attention to product detail descriptions.  

These  proportions  did  not  vary,  even  after  controlling  for  demographic  characteristics 
(gender,  age,  education,  financial  situation,  location),  product  familiarity  (interest  in  the 
product, past purchases of product), and internet usage (non-work hours on the internet, 
attention  to  terms  and  conditions).  Meaning  that  the  findings  apply  to  all  types  of 
consumers;  it  isn’t  the  case  that  particular  profiles  benefit  more  or  less  from  notices 
displaying that the free trial, in fact, involves a paid subscription.  

On average, respondents believed that a larger proportion of other shoppers would notice 
the  fees  than  was  found  when  respondents  were  asked  if  they  themselves  noticed. 
Respondents  may  report  that  others  are  more  likely  to  notice  because  the  experimental 
design and the questions asked draw their attention to this information. Simply by asking 
about  subscriptions,  the  experiment  makes  these  features  more  salient  than  they  would 
be in a real world setting.  

The fact that so few people notice the subscription fees is certainly concerning, especially 
if  the  cost  is  likely  to  affect  the  decision  to  purchase.  Indeed,  when  respondents  were 
asked about the likelihood that other shoppers would purchase an item if they did notice 
the  fee,  they  thought  it  would  be  much  lower  than  if  they  had  not  noticed  the  fee.  This 
comparison suggests that shoppers generally believe that the websites are misleading to 
other consumers. 

The  second  issue  investigated  beyond  whether  consumers’  notice  that  they  are 
subscribing  to  a  paid  service  following  the  free  trial  was  whether  consumers  are  overly 
confident  in  their  ability  to  cancel  their  free  subscription  on  time.  The  results  find  that 
people  do  have  more  confidence  in  their  own  abilities  to  remember  to  cancel  a 
subscription in comparison to what they think others are likely to do. This indicates that 
people  are  systematically  overconfident  in  their  likelihood  to  perform  this  task  as 
compared to others.  

The  results  suggest  that  overconfidence  that  one  will  remember  to  cancel  is  likely  to 
contribute to subscription traps. This is, presumably, why companies offer subscriptions; 
they realise that many consumers will fail to cancel. 

47 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 10:  Likelihood  that  consumers  will  remember  to  cancel  their  subscription  within 

the trial period 

Source: Behavioural experiment. N = 10,018 

In  summary,  it  could  be  said  that  on  the  one  hand  consumers  can  fall  victim  to 
misleading  free  trials  and  subscription  traps  due  to  their  poor  awareness.  However,  the 
results  of  this  study  indicate  that  a  significant  problem  for  consumers  is  that  they  are 
both overconfident in remembering to unsubscribe, and when they do try to unsubscribe 
it  is  very  difficult  to  do  so.  This  can  be  typified  in  the  following  quotes  by  two  of  the 
stakeholders consulted during this study. 

“Consumers  do  not  realise  that  they  have  inadvertently  signed  up  to  an 
expensive  and  recurring  monthly  subscription,  only  becoming  aware  of  this 
on-going  commitment  upon  noticing  large  sums  debited  from  their  credit 
cards  via  a  ‘continuous  payment  authority’  in  favour  of  the  trader.  This 
material  information  about  the  full  scope  of  the  offer  is  often  obscured  or 
buried  in  the  general  terms  and  conditions  and  is  frequently  missed  by 
consumers.  A  key  difficulty  is  identifying  who  is  behind  the  website  offering 
the product for sale. If a returns address is indicated at all on the website, it 
is  generally  that  of  a  order  fulfilment  third  party  company  with  no  contact 
details of the company behind the offer typically provided. Consumers report 
having  significant  difficulty  in  contacting  the  company  in  order  to  cancel  the 
subscription due to no contact details being provided or a lack of response to 
published contact details.’’  

(ECC Ireland) 

 “The  most  common  problem  is  that  consumers  are  not  aware  they  are 
starting  a  subscription  or  that  additional  charges  will  be  taken.  Most 
consumers  expect  that  the  product  they  receive  is  free  for  a  small  postage 
cost.  Consumers  then  find  it  extremely  difficult  to  make  contact  with  the 
trader, return goods and obtain a refund.’’  

(ECC UK) 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

6. Actions to take towards three actors 

The analysis in the previous chapter highlighted the state of play of problematic practices 
associated with free trials and subscriptions and the type of problems and detriments that 
are encountered by online consumers. Based on that analysis and taking into account the 
discussions  that  took  place  with  stakeholders  during  the  stakeholder  workshop,  this 
chapter discusses actions that are or could be taken to combat misleading free trials and 
subscription traps.  

First  of  all,  the  actions  that  consumers  do  already  take  are  considered.  These  actions 
relate  to  what  can  be  done  after  a  consumer  has  been  misled  and  become  trapped  in a 
subscription.  However,  before  purchase,  actions  can  also  be  undertaken  to  avoid 
problems and detriment in the first place.  

Next, the trader itself forms the focus for towards actions can be directed to. This relates 
to  enforcement  by  taking  legal  actions  against  fraudulent  companies,  but  also  by 
authorities  and  agencies  interacting  with  traders  to  warn  them  to  not  make  use  of 
misleading offers.  

Finally, intermediaries are considered, as the evolving digital consumer journey has made 
the role of social media more prevalent. More than a third of the EU28 online population 
ordered  a  free  trial  online  by  responding  to  a  pop-up  advertisement  when  using  the 
internet  or  when  being  active  on  their  social  media  accounts.  Cooperation  with  these 
social  media  providers  is  thus  essential  to  tackle  the  problem  of  misleading  free  trials. 
Also banks and payment companies can be an important intermediary actor to avoid the 
financial detriment for consumers caused by misleading free trials. 

6.1.  Focus on the consumer 

The  focus  can  be  placed  on  the  consumer,  by  raising  awareness,  increasing  information 
channels  and  information  on  how  to  avoid  being  trapped  into  a  misleading  free  trial  or 
subscription  in  the  first  place.  However,  consumers  also  need  to  be  encouraged  to  take 
action  after  being  misled  by  a  free  trial,  such  as  seeking  information  and  help  via 
alternative dispute resolution bodies and other channels that can inform the consumer of 
their rights.  

In terms of prevention there are two main actions: 

  Naming and shaming; 
  Providing information so that consumers can recognise misleading free trials.  

49 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Alerting consumers via a naming and shaming approach is a possible approach that was 
mentioned  by  stakeholders  as  part  of  the  solution.  This  action  would  involve  naming 
traders known to have used illegal practices when offering a free trial.  

However, national legislation is sometimes strict  in relation to this action. Some national 
laws  forbid  these  kind  of  practices  before  a  court  ruling  has  officially  named  the  trader 
which uses  misleading and illegal  practices  to  lure  the  consumer  into  purchasing  his/her 
free  trial  or  subscription.  Furthermore,  many  websites  have  a  short  life  span,  appearing 
and  disappearing,  meaning  that  making  consumers  aware  of  some  known  misleading 
offers may be difficult and not cost effective.  

A different approach to informing consumers would not focus on naming or shaming, but 
rather inform the consumer and make them aware of what to look for when engaging in 
free  trials  in  order  to  avoid  becoming  engaged  in  a  subscription  trap.  For  example, 
specific information for citizens can be provided on media such as websites, Facebook, or 
YouTube. In this way, one can help consumers to recognise misleading trials, for instance 
through a checklist or with a mark (button) that indicates whether a trader can be trusted 
or  not.  Furthermore,  FAQ  sections  on  websites  may  help  by  giving  more  power  to  the 
consumer to understand what is misleading and what is not, which actions they can take, 
providing information about the chargeback option and so on. Another example would be 
a checklist for consumers which can be consulted before purchasing online, lists of known 
free trial scams can be listed in terms of their features, and so on. 

“We usually circulate alerts by sending out press releases, by posting update 
and warning on our website and by using social networks.”  

(ECC Italy) 

 “We  inform  consumers  through  news  messages  on  our  website  and  on  our 
Facebook  site.  We  do  not  name  and  shame  but  we  mention  the  type  of 
complaints  we  receive  and  advise  consumers  how  to  act  when  they  have  a 
similar complaint. If our advice does not solve the matter we mention in the 
message that consumers can contact us and we can assist them in trying to 
solve their complaint.”  

(ECC the Netherlands) 

The  aim  is  to  prevent  consumers  from  being  trapped,  but  also  to  help  them  take  action 
when they are trapped.  

In terms of actions that could assist consumers after they become victim to a misleading 
free  trial  one  option  relates  to  the  use  of  alternative  (online)  dispute  resolution  bodies. 
One  can  provide  arguments  and  provide  to-do  lists  and  template  letters  to  help 
consumers  with  their  specific  case.  However,  as  the  amount  of  money  that  relates  to 
misleading  trials  is  often  limited,  consumers  do  not  always  make  an  effort  to 
communicate  with  these  bodies.  Furthermore,  information  on  the  trader  (which  is  often 
lacking as the analysis highlights) is necessary to undertake this action and the trader has 
to give consent to accept the procedure.  Nevertheless,  when consumers did complain to 
these  bodies,  70%  considered  taking  this  action  easy  and  61%  were  satisfied  by  taking 
this action. 

50 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Finally, awareness campaigns can be aimed at specific groups of consumers. For instance, 
subscription  traps  might  be  more  effective  for  products  that  prey  on  consumers’ 
insecurities,  such  as  weight  loss  supplements  or  acne  treatments.  Indeed,  the  analysis 
presented in this report highlights that cosmetics and health care products are most likely 
to be product groups’ consumers report having had a problem with a free trial. A quarter 
of all free trials for healthcare and cosmetics that were screened for misleading practices 
included ten or more.  

“Our experience is that a wide range of consumers are affected by this issue. 
While  initially  the  vast  majority  of  complainants  to  our  service  were  female, 
we have seen an increase in the number of male consumers affected due to 
the emergence of free trials of purported muscle building supplements. Given 
the  nature  of  the  products  typically  sold  in  this  manner  the  most  vulnerable 
consumers  are  likely  to  be  those  that  are  most  insecure  as  to  their  physical 
appearance.”  

(ECC Ireland)  

Other groups that can be targeted are younger consumers, males and those with financial 
difficulties  who  are  attracted  to  these  types  of  free  trial  offers  but  are  most  likely  to 
become  victim  of  misleading  free  trials  (according  to  the  consumer  survey).  Whilst  the 
consumer  survey clearly highlights the profile of those who are more  likely to state that 
they  had  a  problem  with  a  free  trial  (as  mentioned  above),  stakeholders  have  different 
opinions on which consumers are most likely to be trapped. In their experience, most of 
them agree that any consumer can potentially be trapped or be a victim of a misleading 
free  trial.  The  conclusion  that  everyone  can  become  a  victim  is  phrased  by  the  Finnish 
Competition and Consumer Authority as follows: 

“It seems that there is no particular group more vulnerable than others, but 
almost anyone at the right time and under right circumstances (i.e. when one 
is bored, alone/lonely and browsing through the internet) can be "trapped".” 

 (Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority) 

6.2.  Focus on the traders 

The  focus  can  be  placed  on  the  traders  themselves,  also  by  monitoring  and  evaluating, 
and  thus  raising  awareness  of  the  problematic  practices  found  in  free  trial  and 
subscription  and  the  related  breaches  of  EU  law,  indicating  how  traders  can  alter  their 
marketing  strategy  to  avoid  such  problematic  practices.  Furthermore,  naming  and 
shaming can have an influence, next to taking legal actions. 

Monitoring the market refers to rapid detection of websites and social media monitoring. 
The ability to lock the content of a website is not equally available to consumer protection 
authorities  in  the  EU.  It  might  be  a  useful  action  to  take,  in  case  the  trader  is  not 
responsive or cannot be located and  especially for smaller consumer protection agencies 
with  limited  sources  to  invest  in  complex  investigations  to  trace  and  sanction  the 
responsible traders and intermediaries. 

Investigation  relates  to  cross-national  cooperation  to  track  the  company  and  take  legal 
actions,  pooling  of  investigation  and  coordination  of  enforcement  action  (based  on  the 

51 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Consumer  Protection  Cooperation  (CPC)  Regulation  Article  9).  The  intensity  of 
enforcement  now  varies  considerably  between  countries.  Furthermore,  cooperation  is 
necessary  (not  only  with  intermediaries,  but  also  with  third  countries)  to  take  actions 
against  traders.  Several  cooperation  systems  already  exist,  yet,  in  some  countries  with 
few  resources  or  that  give  lower  priority  to  the  phenomenon,  this  can  be  limited.  As  a 
consequence,  delays  in  setting  up  cooperation  with  these  countries  give  traders  the 
opportunity to ‘move’.  Indeed, this issue was also raised when considering the set-up of 
the mystery shopping exercise.  Misleading free trials and subscriptions are very  volatile, 
as  links  to  the  offer  are  only  online  for  a  short  amount  of  time.  Indeed,  within  an  eight 
week  period  during  this  study,  25%  of  websites  initially  identified  as  offering  free  trials 
were no longer available. This volatility also poses a problem in evidence gathering by the 
authorities.  It  further  poses  a  problem  for  consumers  who  may  not  have  kept  a  copy  of 
the online advertisement or website showing the initial “free” offer and circumstances in 
which  they  “ordered”  the  product  or  service.  In  case  of  a  subscription  trap  they  have 
difficulty to prove their case. 

Cooperation  between  countries  thus  seems  important  to  consider.  Countries  already 
collaborate  with  each  other,  as  misleading  free  trials  are  often  deployed  in  several 
countries. 

“We work together with our  ECC to help them  forward  complaints to the CA 
of  the  CPC-network,  in  rare  cases  we  involve  the  competent  criminal 
authorities.” 

(Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection, Austria) 

The suggestion of naming and shaming has previously been mentioned as an action that 
would  make  consumers  more  aware  of  misleading  free  trials  and  traders  using  these 
tactics. Similarly, this action would also, potentially, discourage traders from engaging in 
these practices. Nevertheless, as already stated, naming and shaming is possible in some 
countries,  but  not  in  others  with  more  strict  regulations.  In  some  countries,  a  court 
sentence  must  be  made  first,  before  this  type  of  action  can  be  taken.  In  addition  the 
temporary  characteristic  of  some  traders  limits  the  impact  of  this  action.  Traders  come 
and go, and their names (and websites) change very rapidly. Therefore, this action is only 
useful  when  traders  are  active  for  a  longer  period  of  time.  Furthermore,  combined  with 
media attention, it can work, but without, consumers will not actively search for a naming 
and shaming list. Nevertheless, CPC authorities can share lists and publicise them on their 
websites. 

The  problem  of  misleading  free  trials  and  subscription  traps  is  also  a  cross-border 
phenomenon, with consumers and traders residing in different countries. Traders are not 
easy to identify and locate as illustrated by the quote below and the fact that almost half 
of  the  mystery  shoppers  had  difficulties  finding  information  about  how  to  unsubscribe. 
This  problem  was  found  on  43%  of  screened  websites  and  the  biggest  problem  that 
consumers reported having with free trials was the inability to unsubscribe.  

“The difficulty to find the correct person behind the company especially if the 
websites the company hosts are situated in several countries.”  

(ECC The Netherlands) 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

“The  difficulty  in  identifying  and  locating  the  companies  and  individuals 
involved in the sale of subscription traps has hampered effective enforcement 
and  enabled  the  problem  to  grow.  In  many  cases  the  traders  involved  are 
located  outside  the  EU,  placing  them  beyond  the  reach  of  European 
enforcement authorities.”  

(ECC Ireland) 

Communication  to  traders  from  the  CPC  authorities,  consumer  associations  and  the  ECC 
might  be  a  possible  action.  Pointing  out  the  existing  rules  and  warning  them  that  the 
enforcement  agencies  take  violations  seriously  might  encourage  some  traders  to  alter 
their poor and misleading practices. A joint general statement can be taken or a checklist 
can be provided. For instance, the Consumer Ombudsman in Norway checks websites for 
subscription traps. They address the traders using screenshots of their websites and refer 
to  the  legal  framework  and  the  possible  infringement  penalty  for  not  following,  for 
instance,  the  Cancellation  Act.  Traders  can  thus  alter  their  website  to  comply  with  this 
regulation.  Strict  and  explanatory  letters  can  be  sent  by  national  authorities  to  correct 
problematic practices and avoid misleading free trials. 

Also  legal  actions  can  be  taken  against  non-compliant  or  fraudulent  companies.  Many 
national  authorities  apply  this  enforcement  strategy.  In  particular,  the  Consumer  Rights 
Directive  introduced  certain  measures  to  regulate  the  relationship  between  businesses 
and  consumers.  In  particular,  the  new  rules  make  it  easier  to  conclude  online  contracts 
(including  cross-border  contracts  in  the  European  Union).  The  directive  also  imposes 
some obligations on businesses in order to protect consumers. For instance, under Article 
8(2) of the Consumer Rights Directive (the so-called “button solution”), online businesses 
must clearly inform consumers when they are about to enter a legally binding agreement 
that  includes  a  payment  obligation  from  the  consumer.  Words  such  as  “order  with  an 
obligation  to  pay”  (rather  than  “register”  or  “try”)  must  be  presented  to  a  consumer 
before  an  order  is  placed.  This  Directive  also  requires  traders  to  indicate  in  a  clear  and 
prominent  manner,  and  directly  before  he  places  the  order  the  main  elements  of  the 
contract  (main  characteristics  of  the  goods  or  service;  the  total  price  of  the  goods  or 
services,  inclusive  of  taxes  and  any  additional  costs;  the  contracts  duration  and  where 
applicable the minimum duration of the consumers’ obligations under the contract and the 
conditions for terminating the contract). This information should be presented in the close 
vicinity  of  the  confirmation  requested  for  the  placing  of  the  order  (recital  39  Consumer 
Rights  Directive).  If  the  trader  has  not  complied  with  these  obligations,  the  consumer  is 
not  bound  by  the  contract.  However,  implementing  the  law  is  not  easy  as  noncompliant 
websites are often exposed only after complaints are received.  

There  are  two  primary  behavioural  mechanisms  that  cause  consumers  to  fall  victim  to 
subscription traps and misleading free trials. First consumers do not realise that they are 
signing  up  for  a  subscription.  Second,  they  may  realise  it  is  a  subscription,  but  are 
overconfident that they will remember to cancel during the relevant cancellation period.  

The  behavioural  experiment  shows  that  more  salient labelling,  that  makes  the  details  of 
the  subscription  more  obvious  and  includes  a  notice  of  the  monthly  fee  to  be  charged 
after the end of the free trial, can help to improve consumers’ awareness of subscription 
traps. However, even when a notice is shown describing the subscription, the majority of 
respondents  in  the  behavioural  experiment  are  not  aware  of  the  recurring  fees.  This 
suggests  that  labelling  may  not  be  sufficient  to  protect  consumers  from  subscription 
traps.  However,  when  that  labelling  includes  the  subscription  fee,  rather  than  simply  a 
notice  that  it  is  a  subscription,  the  likelihood  that  consumers  notice  the  fee  doubles  to 

53 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

24%.  This  indicates  that  the  application  of  legal  requirements  on  labelling  need  to  go 
beyond informing the consumer that what they are engaging in is a subscription, but that 
it is a paid subscription with a specific fee.  

6.3.  Focus on intermediaries 

Last  but  not  least,  cooperation  with  intermediaries  can  be  a  means  to  tackle  misleading 
free  trials,  besides  the  legal  obligations  directly  applicable  to  the  intermediaries. 
Intermediaries  with  a  particular  role  in  the  context  of  misleading  free  trials  and 
subscription  traps  are  firstly  social  media  companies  such  as  Facebook  or  Twitter,  and 
secondly credit card providers and banks. 

Social  media  are  the  platforms  where  the  advertising  for  free  trials  often  takes  place. 
Therefore,  cooperation  of  consumer  protection  authorities  with  social  media  is  an 
important topic. However, intermediates in general, and social media in particular, do not 
always  respond  to  requests  for  information  or  action,  and  they  may  not  provide  all  the 
required information that consumer protection enforcers need. A gap in legislation might 
exist, as enforcement agencies argue they need more tools and powers to do their work. 
Furthermore,  social  media  should  be  aware  that  they  have  a  shared  or  co-responsibility 
when  misleading  free  trials  are  advertised  via  their  services.  Their  reactive  behaviour 
should become proactive.  

In  the  UK,  the  Consumers  and  Markets  Authority  and  Trading  Standards  are  currently 
focusing on social media, trying to involve intermediaries such as Facebook. The National 
Trading  Standards  eCrime  Team  protects  consumers  and  safeguards  business.  They 
engaged  with  Facebook  representatives,  to  receive  information  on  the  subscribers  that 
offered  counterfeited goods, unsafe products  or  misleading advertisements via Facebook 
and  agreed  a  formal  procedure  to  gather  information  and  take-down  illegal  content  and 
prevent scams from proliferating. Other social media operators will also be  contacted by 
the  National  Trading  Standards  eCrime  Team  for  similar  collaborations  (Instagram, 
Twitter, etc.).  

Cooperation  with  banks  and  payment  service  providers  has  already  proven  to  be  an 
efficient  way  to  stop  malpractices  and  non-compliant  traders  in  certain  situations. 
Consumers  can  complain  to  their  credit  card  provider  in  the  case  of  an  incorrect  or 
unauthorised  transfer,  and  request  the  full  amount  back.  The  consumer  survey  results, 
however,  indicated  that  only  46%  of  the  respondents  would  notify  the  bank  as  soon  as 
possible if they noticed a payment transaction from their accounts that they never agreed 
to.  For  instance,  in  Norway,  chargeback  is  well  used.  Chargeback  is  the  technical  term 
used by international card schemes for the refunding process for a transaction carried out 
by card, following the violation of the schemes' rules. Norwegian authorities reached out 
to Norwegian banks, arguing they are obliged to reimburse  consumers when there is no 
valid subscription contract between the trader and the consumer. Therefore, withdrawals 
from  consumers’  bank  accounts  are  unauthorised.  Payment  processing  companies  were 
very  forthcoming,  took  the  matter  seriously  and  acted  accordingly,  in  order  to  help  the 
consumers.  

54 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

There  is,  thus,  a  consensus  that  one  has  to  invest  in  cooperation  with  banks  and  card 
providers. If these have as yet little experience with misleading free trials or subscription 
traps, one could start with clearly illegal cases and gradually evolve towards chargeback 
for  other  cases.  Furthermore,  one  should  empower  consumers  to  keep  going  to  their 
banks for help. This can be done, for example by providing the consumer with documents 
and information to strengthen their claim towards the bank. Bundling information on the 
same misleading case will also help to convince the bank to chargeback.  

By  discussing  several  successful  national  initiatives  of  cooperation  with  intermediaries, 
the general conclusion of the stakeholders is the following: the most effective focus is on 
preventing  problematic  practices  and  fraud  by  traders,  rather  than  on  informing  and 
educating  consumers.  In  relation  to  the  identification  of  responsible  traders  which  is 
difficult  to  obtain  from  intermediaries,  some  changes  to  the  existing  legislation  are 
required to provide enforcement authorities more tools to do their job.  

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

7. Conclusion 

Free trials are marketing tools that allow consumers to order a product or subscribe to a 
service without costs or for a small amount (i.e. postage of the sample). When reviewing 
free  trials  and  subscriptions  online,  one  can  construct  several  typologies  of  business 
models that include free trials and subscriptions at the core of the business model. These 
include free trials in the form of free samples in return for social media attention (e.g. like 
or  share  an  offer  on  Facebook),  or  in  return  for  a  review  of  the  product  or  service. 
Furthermore,  club  memberships  from  day  zero  can  be  offered  as  a  basic  service  to  get 
introduced to the service.  

The  consumer  journey  models  the  steps  in  the  decision  process  of  the  consumer;  from 
the  moment  they  are  triggered  to  the  moment  they  actually  purchase  the  product  or 
subscribe to the service. The digital evolution has changed this journey thoroughly, as the 
introduction  of  several new  ways  of  communicating  and gathering information  made  the 
journey less linear and less predictable. The evolving consumer environment also created 
new  opportunities  for  traders  to  engage  with  possible  consumers.  Especially  the  rise  of 
social  media  has  led  to  more  opportunities  for  companies  to  entice  consumers  with  free 
trial offers.  

This evolution has resulted in the majority of European consumers (66%) signing up for a 
free  trial  offer.  The  most  popular  product  category  that  people  order  free  trials  of  is 
cosmetics and healthcare products (45%) with almost half of Europeans having ordered a 
free  trial  in  this  product  group  in  the  last  year.  The  least  popular  are  dating  services 
(22%). Around a third has ordered free trials of food and health supplements (36%) and 
cloud-based backup services (32%) in the previous year.  

Many  business  models  include  free  trials,  and  this  is  more  frequently  the  case 
now than ever before due to the digital evolution offering more opportunities to 
is 
communicate  and  gather 
unsurprising  that  two  thirds  of  European  consumers  (66%)  have  taken  up  an 
offer of a free trial in the previous year. 

information  from  consumers.  Therefore, 

it 

None of these free trials as marketing strategies are, by definition, misleading. Misleading 
free  trials  and  subscriptions  refer  to  practices  that  are  clearly  in  breach  of  EU  consumer 
law,  such  as  the  promotion  of  the  trial  as  being  "free"  but  the  consumer  is  actually 
enrolled  in  a  paying  subscription,  the  impossibility  of  consumers  to  withdraw  from  the 
subscription  or  the  personal  data  of  consumers  being  passed  on  without  explicit  given 
consent. Nevertheless, grey zone, borderline practices were also found, for instance when 
there is little transparency on how traders select product testers of the product sample. 

Problematic  free  trials  include  practices  that  are  breaches  of  EU  law  or  include 
‘grey  zone’  practices  that  push  the  boundaries  of  what  is  legal  or  are  currently 
untested by EU law. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Primarily,  consumers  do  not  actively  look  for  such  offers,  rather  these  opportunities 
mainly present themselves through pop-up advertising, or when the consumer is on their 
social  media  account.  Therefore,  the  consumer  may  find  themselves  in  a  situation  that 
differs significantly from their typical purchasing behaviour online given that they did not 
actively seek out the offer and may be less aware of what they are signing up for.  

Interestingly,  there  are  some  sociodemographic  characteristics  that  are  associated  with 
encountering problems with free trials. This indicates that there may be some profiles of 
consumers  that  are  more  susceptible  to  becoming  victims  of  misleading  free  trials.  For 
example,  those  experiencing  problems  with  free  trials  are  more  likely  to  be  male, 
younger, living in urban surroundings and those who live in difficult financial situations.  

Consumers are lured into subscription traps because: 

  They are caught unaware – they are not actively looking for these kinds of 
offers. Those from low education backgrounds and in financial difficulties 
primarily  found  the  free  trial  offer  via  a  pop-up  and  younger  consumers 
are  more  likely  to  have  encountered  a  free  trial  offer  whilst  using  their 
social media account;  

  The  kinds  of  issues  they  are  concerned  about  when  shopping  online  are 
not the main problems they then encounter after having a problem with a 
free trial. This demonstrates the mismatch that consumers may not know 
what to look out for; 

  They  do  not  always  do  their  research  before  taking  up  an  offer 
(understanding  Terms and  Conditions,  looking  up  the  rules  about  how  to 
unsubscribe  or  how  to  return  a  product)  and  even  when  they  do  so,  this 
information can be difficult to find; 

  In  particular,  they  are  overconfident  that  they  will  remember  to 

unsubscribe before the trial period ends; 

  On the other hand, consumers do not appear to be lured into traps due to 

messages about the product or service being a limited offer.  

Over 900 websites were screened in terms of whether they included problematic practices 
at  the  point  of  purchase.  The  results  overwhelmingly  indicate  that  the  majority  of  free 
trials  include  problematic  practices;  only  2.7%  did  not  include  a  single  problematic 
practice. In general, half of the free trial offers that were screened included five or more 
problematic  practices.  All  types  of  websites  include  problematic  practices  –  it  is  a  wide 
scale  issue.  It  is  not  the  case  that  it  is  only  an  issue  amongst  unpopular  websites,  but 
also  more  popular  ones  meaning  that  consumers  are  likely  to  encounter  problematic 
practices (whether they are aware of this or not).  

The  magnitude  of  malpractices  varied  considerably  across  product  categories,  but  free 
trials  related  to  health  care  and  cosmetics  are  more  likely  to  include  problematic 
practices.  It  is  important  to  note  that  this  product  category  is  also  the  most  popular 
amongst consumers who took up free trial offers.  

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

The  most  prevalent  single  problematic  practices  found  amongst  the  screened  free  trial 
offers were the following three practices:  

1.  In  63%  of  screened  offers  traders  could  pass  on  details  to  others  without 
consumers’ consent’, or it was unclear whether the trader could pass on details to 
others without consumers’ consent’; in the mystery shopping exercise 31% said it 
was not clear how their personal details would be treated; 

2.  In 60% of screened offers one or more contact details of the traders’ could not be 
found,  were  false  or  unclear;  at  the  moment  of  ordering  only  7%  of  mystery 
shoppers  found  it  unclear  who  was  offering  the  free  trial,  but  when  trying  to 
contact traders to cancel the subscription 27% did not find contact information and 
54% that attempted to contact the supplier did not succeed and  

3.  In 53% of screened offers traders used framing-in strategies to engage consumers 
in  the  free  trial  (such  as  limited  time  left,  limited  quantities  left,  testimonials, 
benefits  claims,  …).  The  nature  or  misleading  character  of  claims  made  may 
however  be  less  obvious  as  only  5%  the  mystery  shoppers  assessed  claims 
included in the free trial as unsubstantiated or unauthorised.  

Several  problematic  practices  concerned  information  on  the  duration  of  the  trial,  the 
subscription  and  how  and  when  the  consumer  can  withdraw  or  cancel  the  subscription. 
Jointly these problematic practices are highly prevalent. The procedure to withdraw from 
the trial or subscription was the single issue that consumers found to be most problematic 
when  assessing  websites  during  the  mystery  shopping  exercise.  Almost  half  (47%)  had 
difficulties  finding  information  pertaining  to  what  they  were  supposed  to  do  when  they 
choose not to purchase the product/service after the trial. This is a particularly important 
aspect  given  that  the  consumer  survey  found  that  58%  look  into  how  to  unsubscribe 
before  they  order  a  free  trial.  This  means  that  the  majority  may  look  into  the  rules  of 
unsubscribing,  however  these  procedures  are  misleading  in  43%  of  websites  screened 
and  47%  of  mystery  shoppers  had  difficulties  finding  the  information  they  need  to 
unsubscribe.  Therefore,  whilst  consumers  may  not  always  be  aware  that  they  are 
subscribing to a service, or be aware of the terms and conditions of such offers when they 
engage  in  a  free  trial,  the  bigger  problem  appears  to  be  the  fact  that  consumers  have 
severe difficulties to unsubscribe from these offers.  

Whilst not  all free trials include  problematic practices, the vast majority of free 
trials  include  at  least  one  problematic  practice  that  has  the  potential  to  lure 
consumers  into  subscription  traps  or  cause  other  negative  consequences  for 
them such as harassment or spamming (especially when they no longer wish to 
avail of the service or product).  

Furthermore,  free  trial offers  are  also  volatile. For  example,  this  study  found  that  within 
an eight week period, 25% of websites assessed for the website screening were no longer 
available.  In  particular,  the  ‘pop-up’  nature  of  these  offers  means  that  they  are  highly 
likely  to  appear  and  quickly  disappear  adding  to  the  difficulties  consumers  may  have  in 
unsubscribing or being able to go back to see what the terms of the original offer were.  

Whilst there are a lot of problematic practices that free trials utilise, this does not always 
translate  into  problems  for  consumers.  21%  of  consumers  who  ordered  a  free  trial  say 
they had a problem with a free trial (14% of all consumers). It may be the case that not 
all  problematic  practices  lead  to  consumer  detriment,  especially  in  cases  where 
consumers are satisfied with the product or  service. However, when consumers do have 
an issue with a free trial, or (in particular) no longer wish to avail of the service, that is 
59 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

when consumers appear to encounter the most problems. Therefore, it could be the case 
that consumers are not likely to suffer any detriment to taking up a free trial offer as long 
as they wish to continue to have that service. It is when they try to unsubscribe that they 
run into difficulties and find themselves in a subscription trap.  

Whilst consumers do complain when they encounter problems with a free trial, mainly to 
the seller directly, many (19%) don’t take any action at all.  

Regardless of why consumers find themselves in a subscription trap, whether it 
is due to unclear or misleading information by the trader, a lack of awareness of 
their rights or their overconfidence in remembering to unsubscribe, the biggest 
problem consumers’ face is being able to unsubscribe (due to difficulties finding 
contact  details  of  sellers  in  order  to  unsubscribe  and  the  volatility  of  such 
offers).  

In  terms  of  recommended  actions  to  address  misleading  free  trials  and  subsequent 
detriment  for  consumers,  there  are  three  main  targets  –  consumers,  traders  and 
intermediaries. In terms of the consumer, raising awareness and increasing knowledge is 
the first step to reduce the incidence of problems and detriment related to misleading free 
trials  and  subscriptions.  Furthermore,  consumers  should  be  encouraged  to  take  actions 
and  to  involve  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  bodies  and  other  channels  to  receive 
valuable information on actions to undertake. 

Actions involving traders could include raising awareness through communication with the 
trader  and  monitoring  and  evaluating  free  trials  and  subscription  offers.  Indicating  how 
traders can alter their marketing strategy to comply with EU law and correct problematic 
practices  can  be  effective  to  avoid  detriment  and  problems  for  consumers.  Strict 
enforcement  of  the  current  legislation  in  this  area  is  another  strategy,  though 
implementation of the law is not always easy as the volatility of offers poses a problem in 
evidence gathering. 

Last  but  not  least,  cooperation  with  intermediaries  can  be  a  means  to  tackle  misleading 
free  trials.  Intermediaries  can  be  social  media  companies  such  as  Facebook  or  Twitter, 
but can also include credit card providers and banks. Intermediates such as banks, debt 
collectors,  and  social  media  should  be  encouraged  to  give  all  the  information  they  have 
available on the trader to those enforcing the law.  

This  study  recommends  that  actions  targeting  traders  and  intermediaries  may 
be the most effective – tackle the problem at the source (i.e. prevent misleading 
free  trials  and  subscription  traps)  rather  than  investing  in  changing  consumer 
behaviour through information and education.  

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

8. Annex legal framework 

The  legal  framework  governing  problematic  practices  is  made  up  of  a  number  of  key 
pieces  of  European  legislation.  The  table  outlines  each  questionable  practice  and  the 
relevant  piece  of  legislation.  The  main  legal  consumer  protection  acts  and  relevant 
provisions are as follows: 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: Directive 2005/29/EC of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  May  2005  concerning  unfair  business-to-
consumer commercial practices in the internal market.  

  Unfair  Contract  Terms  Directive:  Council  Directive  93/13/EEC  of  5  April  1993 

on unfair terms in consumer contracts. 

  Consumer  Rights  Directive:  Directive  2011/83/EU  of  the  European  Parliament 

and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights.  

  Payment  Services  Directive:  Directive  2007/64/EC  of  the  European  Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  of  13  November  2007  on  payment  services  in  the  internal 
market 

  E-Commerce Directive: Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, 
in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market.  

  E-Privacy Directive: Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  of  12  July  2002  concerning  the  processing  of  personal  data  and  the 
protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy 
and electronic communications). 

  Data Protection Directive: European Parliament and Council Directive 95/46/EC 
of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing 
of personal data and on the free movement of such data.  

  Consumer  Sales  Directive  requires  minimum  quality  standards  and  equal  rules 

for consumer sales and guarantees for the common European market. 

  Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation: Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the 
European  parliament  and  of  the  council  of  20  December  2006  on  nutrition  and 
health claims made on foods. 

61 

 
 
Practices relate to… 

Problematic practice 

Legal framework 

1. Trader’s contacts  

Contact  detail(s)  are  not  found,  false,  or 
unclear, including trader’s 

  name,  
  email address,  
 
  postal address 

telephone number,  

2. Trader’s country  

This  can  lead  to  a  variety  of  issues  for 
consumers  including  inability  to  lodge 
complaints,  poor  customer  service  or 
issues when returning products 
Unclear,  false,  or  misleading  information 
on  which  country  the  trader  operates 
from  (which  can  also  contribute  to  the 
issues  mentioned 
no 
information about it. 

above) 

or 

3. Consumer’s personal 

details  

4. Passing on consumer’s 

personal details 

Relevance of the personal data requested 
is missing or unclear 
Trader  can  pass  details  on  to  others 
is 
without  consumer’s  consent  or 
unclear  whether  trader  can  pass  details 
on to others without consumer’s consent.  

it 

5. Credit card charges  

Credit  card  can  be  charged  beyond 
delivery 
is 
unclear/ambiguous/not clearly visible and 
understandable whether this is the case. 

charges 

or 

it 

  E-Commerce Directive 2000/31 

Art. 5.1 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive  

Art. 6.1  
Art. 7 

  E-Commerce Directive 2000/31 

Art. 5.1 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 7 

  Data Protection Directive 

Art. 6.1 

  Data Protection Directive 

Art. 7  
Art. 14 

  E-Privacy Directive 

Art. 13 

  Payment Services Directive 

Art. 54  
Art. 60.1  
Art. 62 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6-1 
Art. 7 

  Consumer rights Directive 

Art. 22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Practices relate to… 

Problematic practice 

Legal framework 

6. Content of free trial  

It is unclear if the free trial consists of: 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

  Posted sample 
  Sample to be collected 
  Time unlimited, service limited 
  Time limited, service limited 
  Time limited, service unlimited 
  Winning a prize 
  Free or discounted in addition to a 

purchase 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8  
Art. 22 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6  
Art 7 

  E-Commerce Directive 

Art. 5.2 

  Free but with publicity 
  Free 

if  sign  up 

newsletter 
materials 

or 

for  receiving 
promotional 

  Free 

if  a  product 

review 

is 

free  trial 

is 

  E-Commerce Directive  

7. Promoting free trial  

provided 

  Freemium 
is  unclear  how  the 

It 
promoted: 

8. Discounting practices 

  Free/gratis 
  Zero cost 
  Very cheap 
  Discount/free with purchase 
  Gift 
 

Join a community 

It  is  unclear  and  there  is  insufficient 
precise  information  about  pricing  (for 
instance  as  provide  product  review, 
engage others in paid subscription, etc.) 

9. Type of free trial charges  When  the  trial  is  promoted  as  ‘for  free’ 
(gratis,  etc.)  and  there  are  charges, 
other 
indicated 
transportation or postal costs 

clearly 

than 

Art. 5.2 
Art. 6 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive  

Annex I, No. 20 
Art. 6 
Art. 7 

  E-Commerce Directive 

Art. 6 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Annex I, No. 20 
Art. 6 
Art 7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Practices relate to… 

Problematic practice 

Legal framework 

10. Occurrence free trial 

charges 

11. Paid subscription after 

free trial  

12. Occurrence subscription 

charges 

than 

When  charges  are  unclear,  credit  card  is 
automatically  charged,  and  charges  of 
any  type  are  requested  during  the  free 
trial.  This  includes  delivery  costs/final 
that  which  was 
price  higher 
displayed 
When  engagement  in  paid  subscription 
after  free  trial  happens  automatically 
without  reminder,  there  are  unsolicited 
packages,  or  it  is  not  made  sufficiently 
clear.  This  can  lead  the  consumer  to  be 
unaware  they  have  subscribed  for  a  paid 
service 

When  these  subscription  charges  are 
unclear,  credit  cards  are  automatically 
charged,  or  information  about  charges  is 
hard  to  find,  hard  to  understand,  or  not 
available 

13. Clarity information 

charges 

When  information  on  charges  is  hard  to 
find, hard to understand or not available 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Annex I, No. 20 
Art. 6 
Art. 7.4 (e) 

  Consumer rights Directive 

Art. 22 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art 6.1 
Art. 8 
Art. 22 
Art. 27 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 
Annex I, No. 29 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1  
Art. 8 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8 
Art. 22 

  Payment Services Directive 

Art. 54.1 
Art. 60 
Art. 62 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Practices relate to… 

Problematic practice 

Legal framework 

14. Clarity information start 

and end dates 

When information on start and end dates 
is hard to find, hard to understand or not 
available 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

15. Clarity information on 

duration  

When information on the duration of paid 
subscription  is  hard  to  find,  hard  to 
understand or not available 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8 

16. Clarity information on 
terms and conditions 

17. Framing-in strategies 

information 

When 
conditions 
understand or not available 

is  hard  to 

on 

terms 

and 
find,  hard  to 

False  statements  about  the  product  or 
service,  such  as  false  statements  about 
limited  time  left,  limited  quantities  left, 
testimonials,  benefits  claims,  use  of 
known  brands  to  endorse  credibility, 
describing  the  product/service  as  ‘free’ 
when it is not 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

  E-Commerce Directive 

Art. 10.3 

  Unfair Contract Terms Directive 

Art. 5 

  Consumer Rights Directive  

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Annex I, No. 7 
Art. 6 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Annex I, No. 17 
Annex I, No. 19 
Annex I, No. 20 
Annex I, No. 31 

  Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation 

Art. 3  
Art. 5.1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Practices relate to… 

Problematic practice 

Legal framework 

18. Timing to cancel or 

withdraw trial 

When  it  is  unclear  when  consumers  can 
withdraw from free trial, or within a time 
window that is shorter  than  the free trial 
(which 
difficulties 
can 
withdrawing or cancelling) 

lead 

to 

19. Procedure to cancel or 

withdraw trial 

20. Timing to cancel or 

withdraw subscription 

the  procedure 

When 
to  cancel  or 
withdraw  from  the  free  trial  is  to  return 
the  package  sealed,  or 
to  pay  a 
cancellation fee, or when the procedure is 
unclear  (which  can  lead  to  difficulties 
withdrawing or cancelling) 

When  consumers  can  cancel  or  withdraw 
from  paid  subscription  only  after  a 
certain  amount  of  payments  or  when  is 
unclear  (which  can  lead  to  difficulties 
withdrawing or cancelling) 

21. Procedure to cancel or 
withdraw subscription 

the  procedure 

When 
to  cancel  or 
withdraw  from  paid  subscription  is  to 
return  the  package  sealed,  or  to  pay  a 
cancellation fee, or when the procedure is 
unclear  (which  can  lead  to  difficulties 
withdrawing or cancelling) 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8.2  
Art. 8.4 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8.2  
Art. 8.4 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8.2  
Art. 8.4 
Art. 9 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 6.1 
Art. 8.2  
Art. 8.4 
Art. 9 
Art. 14.2 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6 
Art. 7 

22. Delivery of products or 
services that were not 
ordered (i.e. inertia 
selling) 

When  consumers  receive  products  or 
subscription  services  which  were  not 
ordered.  

  Consumer Rights Directive 

Art. 27 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Annex I, No. 29 
Art. 8 

 
 
Practices relate to… 

Problematic practice 

Legal framework 

23. Aggressive debt 

collection 

stalking,  or 
Persistent  harassment, 
threats in order to enforce a (contractual) 
obligation  to  pay  a  debt,  whereas  these 
actions  are  not  based  on  an  executable 
judgement  or  not  performed  by  legal 
authorities allowed to do so 

24 Quality or value of 
products/services  

25. Spamming 

Receiving  products/services  that  are  of 
no  use/value  or  receiving  products  or 
services  of  lower  quality  than  advertised 
(or not functional) 

Showing  advertisements  or 
sending 
unrequested  e-mails  with  advertising, 
that  are  not  presented  as  commercial 
advertisements  (e.g.  pop-ups  of 
‘an 
individual’  on  Facebook  or  ‘informative’ 
posts on Twitter) 
Sending  commercial  e-mails  without 
consent of the addressee (opt-in) 
Sending commercial e-mails without opt-
out possibility 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 8  
Art. 9 

  Privacy  Directive  (Data  Protection  Directive) 

95/46 
Art. 14 

  E-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC 

Art. 13 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive  

Annex I, No. 29 
Annex I, No. 22 

  Consumer Sales Directive  

Art. 2.1 

  Unfair Commercial Practices 

Art. 6  
Art. 7 

  E-Commerce Directive  

Art. 6  
Art. 7 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

Art. 6.7 
Annex I, No. 11 
Annex I, No. 22 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

More precisely, the following legal framework and articles can be considered: 

  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive:  

o  Art. 6 
o  Art. 7 
o  Art. 8  
o  Art. 9 
o  Annex I, No. 7, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 29, 31 

  Unfair Contract Terms Directive:  

o  Art. 5 

  Consumer Rights Directive:  

o  Art. 6.1,  
o  Art. 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 
o  Art. 9  
o  Art. 14.2 
o  Art. 22 
o  Art. 27 

  Payment Services Directive:  

o  Art. 54  
o  Art. 60.1, 60.2 
o  Art. 62 

  E-Commerce Directive:  
o  Art. 5.1, 5.2 
o  Art. 6 
o  Art. 7 
o  Art. 10.3 
  E-Privacy Directive:  
o  Art. 13 

  Data Protection Directive:  

o  Art. 6.1 
o  Art. 7  
o  Art. 14 

  Consumer Sales Directive:  

o  Art. 2.1 

  Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation:  

o  Art. 3  
o  Art. 5.1 

68 

 
 
 
Unfair 
Commercial 
Practices 
Directive: 
Art. 6 

Art. 7 

Article says 

1.  A  commercial  practice  shall  be  regarded  as  misleading if it  contains  false  information  and is therefore 
untruthful  or  in  any  way,  including  overall  presentation,  deceives  or  is  likely  to  deceive  the  average 
consumer,  even  if  the  information  is  factually  correct,  in  relation  to  one  or  more  of  the  following 
elements,  and  in  either  case  causes  or  is  likely  to  cause  him  to  take  a  transactional  decision  that  he 
would not have taken otherwise: 
(a)  the existence or nature of the product; 
(b) the  main  characteristics  of  the  product,  such  as  its  availability,  benefits,  risks,  execution,  composition, 
accessories, after-sale customer assistance and complaint handling, method and date of manufacture or 
provision, delivery, fitness for purpose, usage, quantity, specification, geographical or commercial origin 
or the results to be expected from its use, or the results and  material features of tests or checks carried out 
on the product; 

(c) the  extent  of  the  trader's  commitments,  the  motives  for  the  commercial  practice  and  the  nature  of  the 
sales  process,  any  statement  or  symbol  in  relation  to  direct  or  indirect  sponsorship  or  approval  of  the 
trader or the product; 

(d) the price or the manner in which the price is calculated, or the existence of a specific price advantage; 
(e) the need for a service, part, replacement or repair; 
(f)  the  nature,  attributes  and  rights  of  the  trader  or  his  agent,  such  as  his  identity  and  assets,  his 
qualifications,  status,  approval,  affiliation  or  connection  and  ownership  of  industrial,  commercial  or 
intellectual property rights or his awards and distinctions; 

(g) the consumer's rights, including the right to replacement or reimbursement under Directive 1999/44/EC 
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer 
goods and associated guarantees (8), or the risks he may face. 

2.  A commercial practice shall also be regarded as misleading if, in its factual context, taking account of all 
its  features  and  circumstances,  it  causes  or  is  likely  to  cause  the  average  consumer  to  take  a 
transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise, and it involves: 
(a) any marketing of a product, including comparative advertising, which creates confusion with any 

products, trade marks, trade names or other distinguishing marks of a competitor; 

(b) non-compliance by the trader with commitments contained in codes of conduct by which the trader has 
undertaken to be bound, where (i) he commitment is not aspirational but is firm and is capable of being 
verified, and (ii) the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by the code 
1.  A commercial practice shall be regarded as misleading if, in its factual context, taking account of all its 

features and circumstances and the limitations of the communication medium, it omits material information 
that the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision and 
thereby causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not 

 
 
 
Unfair 
Commercial 
Practices 
Directive: 

Article says 

have taken otherwise.  

2.  It  shall  also  be  regarded  as  a  misleading  omission  when,  taking  account  of  the  matters  described  in 
paragraph  1,  a  trader  hides  or  provides  in  an  unclear,  unintelligible,  ambiguous  or  untimely  manner  such 
material  information  as  referred  to  in  that  paragraph  or  fails  to  identify  the  commercial  intent  of  the 
commercial  practice  if  not  already  apparent  from  the  context,  and  where,  in  either  case,  this  causes  or  is 
likely  to  cause  the  average  consumer  to  take  a  transactional  decision  that  he  would  not  have  taken 
otherwise. 

3.  Where the medium used to communicate the commercial practice imposes limitations of space or time, these 
limitations and any measures taken by the trader to make the information available to consumers by other 
means shall be taken into account in deciding whether information has been omitted. 

4.  In  the  case  of  an  invitation  to  purchase,  the  following  information  shall  be  regarded  as  material,  if  not 

already apparent from the context: 
(a) the main characteristics of the product, to an extent appropriate to the medium and the product; 
(b) the geographical address and the identity of the trader, such as his trading name and, where applicable, 

the geographical address and the identity of the trader on whose behalf he is acting; 

(c) the price inclusive of taxes, or where the nature of the product means that the price cannot reasonably 
be calculated in advance, the manner in which the price is calculated, as well as, where appropriate, all 
additional freight, delivery or postal charges or, where these charges cannot reasonably be calculated in 
advance, the fact that such additional charges may be payable; 

(d) the  arrangements  for  payment,  delivery,  performance  and  the  complaint  handling  policy,  if  they  depart 

from the requirements of professional diligence; 

(e) for products and transactions involving a right of withdrawal or cancellation, the existence of such a right. 
5.  Information requirements established by Community law in relation to commercial communication including 
advertising  or  marketing,  a  non-exhaustive  list  of  which  is  contained  in  Annex  II,  shall  be  regarded  as 
material. 

A commercial practice shall be regarded as aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all its features 
and  circumstances,  by  harassment,  coercion,  including  the  use  of  physical  force,  or  undue  influence,  it 
significantly impairs or is likely to significantly impair the average consumer's freedom of choice or conduct with 
regard to the product and thereby causes  him or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision that he 
would not have taken otherwise. 
In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion, including the use of physical force, or 
undue influence, account shall be taken of: 
(a) 
(b) 

its timing, location, nature or persistence; 
the use of threatening or abusive language or behaviour; 

Art. 8  

Art. 9 

 
 
 
Unfair 
Commercial 
Practices 
Directive: 

Article says 

any threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken. 

(c) 
the exploitation by the trader of any specific misfortune or circumstance of such gravity as to impair the 
consumer's  judgement,  of  which  the  trader  is  aware,  to  influence  the  consumer's  decision  with  regard  to  the 
product; 
(d) 
any  onerous  or  disproportionate  non-contractual  barriers  imposed  by  the  trader  where  a  consumer 
wishes  to  exercise  rights  under  the  contract,  including  rights  to  terminate  a  contract  or  to  switch  to  another 
product or another trader; 
(e) 
Falsely  stating  that  a  product  will  only  be  available  for  a  very  limited  time,  or  that  it  will  only  be  available  on 
particular  terms  for  a  very  limited  time,  in  order  to  elicit  an  immediate  decision  and  deprive  consumers  of 
sufficient opportunity or time to make an informed choice. 
Using  editorial  content  in  the  media  to  promote  a  product  where  a  trader  has  paid  for  the  promotion 
without  making  that  clear  in  the  content  or  by  images  or  sounds  clearly  identifiable  by  the  consumer 
(advertorial). This is without prejudice to Council Directive 89/552/EEC. 
Falsely claiming that a product is able to cure illnesses, dysfunction or malformations 
Claiming  in  a  commercial  practice  to  offer  a  competition  or  prize  promotion  without  awarding  the  prizes 
described or a reasonable equivalent. 

Annex I, No. 7 

Annex I, No. 11 

Annex I, No. 17 
Annex I, No. 19 

Annex I, No. 20 

Describing a product as ‘gratis’, ‘free’, ‘without charge’ or similar if the consumer has to pay anything other than 
the unavoidable cost of responding to the commercial practice and collecting or paying for delivery of the item. 

Annex I, No. 22 

Falsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not acting for purposes relating to his trade, 
business, craft or profession, or falsely representing oneself as a consumer. 

Annex I, No. 25 

Conducting  personal  visits  to  the  consumer's  home  ignoring  the  consumer's  request  to  leave  or  not  to  return 
except in circumstances and to the extent justified, under national law, to enforce a contractual obligation. 

Annex I, No. 29 

Annex I, No. 26  Making  persistent  and  unwanted  solicitations  by  telephone,  fax,  e-mail  or  other  remote  media  except  in 
circumstances and to the extent justified under national law to enforce a contractual obligation. This is without 
prejudice to Article 10 of Directive 97/7/EC and Directives 95/46/EC (2) and 2002/58/EC. 
Demanding immediate or deferred payment for or the return or safekeeping of products supplied by the trader, 
but  not  solicited  by  the  consumer  except  where  the  product  is  a  substitute  supplied  in  conformity  with  Article 
7(3) of Directive 97/7/EC (inertia selling). 
Creating the false impression that the consumer has already won, will win, or will on doing a particular act win, 
a prize or  other  equivalent benefit, when in fact either: there is no prize or other  equivalent benefit, or taking 

Annex I, No. 31 

 
 
 
 
Unfair 
Commercial 
Practices 
Directive: 

Article says 

Unfair Contract 
Terms 
Directive: 
Art. 5 

Consumer 
Rights 
Directive: 
Art. 6.1 

any action in relation to claiming the prize or other equivalent benefit is subject to the consumer paying money 
or incurring a cost. 

Article says 

In  the  case  of  contracts  where  all  or  certain  terms  offered  to  the  consumer  are  in  writing,  these  terms  must 
always  be  drafted  in  plain,  intelligible  language.  Where  there  is  doubt  about  the  meaning  of  a  term,  the 
interpretation  most  favourable  to  the  consumer  shall  prevail.  This  rule  on  interpretation  shall  not  apply  in  the 
context of the procedures laid down in Article 7 (2). 

Article says 

Before  the  consumer  is  bound  by  a  distance  or  off-premises  contract,  or  any  corresponding  offer,  the 
trader shall provide the consumer with the following information in a clear and comprehensible manner: 
(a) the main characteristics of the goods  or  services, to the extent appropriate to the medium and to the 

goods or services; 

(b) the identity of the trader, such as his trading name; 
(c) the  geographical  address  at  which  the  trader  is  established  and  the  trader’s  telephone  number,  fax 
number and e-mail address, where available, to enable the consumer to contact the trader quickly and 
communicate  with  him  efficiently  and,  where  applicable,  the  geographical  address  and  identity  of  the 
trader on whose behalf he is acting; 

(d) if  different  from  the  address  provided  in  accordance  with  point  (c),  the  geographical  address  of  the 
place of business of the trader, and, where applicable, that of the trader on whose behalf he is acting, 
where the consumer can address any complaints; 

(e) the  total  price  of  the  goods  or  services  inclusive  of  taxes,  or  where  the  nature  of  the  goods  or  services  is 
such  that  the  price  cannot  reasonably  be  calculated  in  advance,  the  manner  in  which  the  price  is  to  be 
calculated, as well as, where applicable, all additional freight, delivery or postal charges and any other costs 
or,  where  those  charges  cannot  reasonably  be  calculated  in  advance,  the  fact  that  such  additional  charges 
may be payable. In the case of a contract of indeterminate duration or a contract containing a subscription, 
the  total  price  shall  include  the  total  costs  per  billing  period.  Where  such  contracts  are  charged  at  a  fixed 

 
 
 
 
 
Consumer 
Rights 
Directive: 

Article says 

rate,  the  total  price  shall  also  mean  the  total  monthly  costs.  Where  the  total  costs  cannot  be  reasonably 
calculated in advance, the manner in which the price is to be calculated shall be provided; 

(f)  the cost of using the means of distance communication for the conclusion of the contract where that cost is 

calculated other than at the basic rate; 

(g) the  arrangements  for  payment,  delivery,  performance,  the  time  by  which  the  trader  undertakes  to  deliver 

the goods or to perform the services and, where applicable, the trader’s complaint handling policy; 

(h) where  a  right  of  withdrawal  exists,  the  conditions,  time  limit  and  procedures  for  exercising  that  right  in 

accordance with Article 
procedures for  exercising that right in accordance with Article 11(1), as well as the model withdrawal form 
set out in Annex I(B); 

(i)  where applicable, that the consumer will have to bear the cost of returning the goods in case of withdrawal 
and, for distance contracts, if the goods, by their nature, cannot normally be returned by post, the  cost  of 
returning the goods; 

(j)  that,  if  the  consumer  exercises  the  right  of  withdrawal  after  having  made  a  request  in  accordance  with 
Article  7(3)  or  Article  8(8),  the  consumer  shall  be  liable  to  pay  the  trader  reasonable  costs  in  accordance 
with Article 14(3); 

(k) where  a  right  of  withdrawal  is  not  provided  for  in  accordance  with  Article  16,  the  information  that  the 
consumer will not benefit from a right of withdrawal or, where applicable, the circumstances under which the 
consumer loses his right of withdrawal; 

(…) 
(o) the  duration  of  the  contract,  where  applicable,  or,  if  the  contract  is  of  indeterminate  duration  or  is  to  be 

extended automatically, the conditions for terminating the contract; 

(p) where applicable, the minimum duration of the consumer’s obligations under the contract; 
(q) where  applicable,  the  existence  and  the  conditions  of  deposits  or  other  financial  guarantees  to  be  paid  or 

provided by the consumer at the request of the trader; 

The  information  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  shall  form  an  integral  part  of  the  distance  or  off-premises  contract 
and shall not be altered unless the contracting parties expressly agree otherwise. 
If the trader has not complied with the information requirements on additional charges or other costs as referred 
to in point (e) of paragraph 1, or on the costs of returning the goods as referred to in point (i) of paragraph 1, 
the consumer shall not bear those charges or costs. 
Member States may maintain or introduce in their national law language requirements regarding the contractual 
information, so as to ensure that such information is easily understood by the consumer. 
The information requirements laid down in this Directive are in addition to information requirements contained in 
Directive  2006/123/EC  and  Directive  2000/31/EC  and  do  not  prevent  Member  States  from  imposing  additional 
information requirements in accordance with those Directives.  Without prejudice to the first subparagraph, if a 

Art. 6.5  

Art. 6.6 

Art. 6.7 

Art. 6.8 

 
 
 
Consumer 
Rights 
Directive: 

Article says 

Art. 6.9 

Art. 8.1 

Art. 8.2 

Art. 8.3 

Art. 8.4 

Art. 22 

Art. 27 

provision  of  Directive  2006/123/EC  or  Directive  2000/31/EC  on  the  content  and  the  manner  in  which  the 
information  is  to  be  provided  conflicts  with  a  provision  of  this  Directive,  the  provision  of  this  Directive  shall 
prevail. 
As regards compliance with the information requirements laid down in this Chapter, the burden of proof shall be 
on the trader. 
With respect to distance contracts, the trader shall give the information provided for in Article 6(1) or make that 
information  available  to  the  consumer  in  a  way  appropriate  to  the  means  of  distance  communication  used  in 
plain and intelligible language. In so far as that information is provided on a durable medium, it shall be legible. 
If a distance contract to be concluded by electronic means places the consumer under an obligation to pay, the 
trader  shall  make  the  consumer  aware  in  a  clear  and  prominent  manner,  and  directly  before  the  consumer 
places  his  order,  of  the  information  provided  for  in  points  (a),  (e),  (o)  and  (p)  of  Article  6(1).  
The  trader  shall  ensure  that  the  consumer,  when  placing  his  order,  explicitly  acknowledges  that  the  order 
implies  an  obligation to  pay.  If  placing  an  order  entails  activating  a button  or  a  similar  function,  the  button  or 
similar function shall be labelled in an easily legible manner only with the words ‘order with obligation to pay’ or 
a  corresponding  unambiguous  formulation  indicating  that  placing  the  order  entails  an  obligation  to  pay  the 
trader. If the trader has not complied with this subparagraph, the consumer shall not be bound by the contract 
or order. 
Trading websites shall indicate clearly and legibly at the latest at the beginning of the ordering process whether 
any delivery restrictions apply and which means of payment are accepted 
If the  contract is concluded through a means  of distance  communication which allows limited space  or time to 
display  the  information,  the  trader  shall  provide,  on  that  particular  means  prior  to  the  conclusion  of  such  a 
contract, at least the pre-contractual information regarding the main characteristics of the goods or services, the 
identity of the trader, the total price, the right of withdrawal, the duration of the contract and, if the contract is 
of indeterminate duration, the conditions for terminating the contract, as referred to in points (a), (b), (e), (h) 
and  (o)  of  Article  6(1).  The  other  information referred  to  in  Article  6(1)  shall  be  provided  by  the  trader  to  the 
consumer in an appropriate way in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article. 
Before  the  consumer  is  bound  by  the  contract  or  offer,  the  trader  shall  seek  the  express  consent  of  the 
consumer to any  extra payment in addition to the remuneration agreed upon for the trader’s  main contractual 
obligation.  If  the  trader  has  not  obtained  the  consumer’s  express  consent  but  has  inferred  it  by  using  default 
options which the consumer is required to reject in order to avoid the additional payment, the consumer shall be 
entitled to reimbursement of this payment. 
The consumer shall be exempted from the obligation to provide any consideration in cases of unsolicited supply 
of goods, water, gas, electricity, district heating or digital content or unsolicited provision of services, prohibited 
by Article 5(5) and point 29 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC. In such cases, the absence of a response from 
the consumer following such an unsolicited supply or provision shall not constitute consent. 

 
 
 
Payment 
Services 
Directive: 
Art. 54 

Art. 60.1 

Art. 60.2 

Art. 62.1 

Article says 

1.  Member States shall ensure that a payment transaction is considered to be authorised only if the payer has 

given consent to execute the payment transaction. A payment transaction may be authorised by the 
payer prior to or, if agreed between the payer and his payment service provider, after the execution of the 
payment transaction. 

2.  Consent  to  execute  a  payment  transaction  or  a  series  of  payment  transactions  shall  be  given  in  the  form 
agreed  between  the  payer  and  his  payment  service  provider.  In  the  absence  of  such  consent,  a  payment 
transaction shall be considered to be unauthorised. 

3.  Consent  may  be  withdrawn  by  the  payer  at  any  time,  but  no  later  than  the  point  in  time  of  irrevocability 
under Article 66. Consent to execute a series of payment transactions may also be withdrawn with the effect 
that any future payment transaction is to be considered as unauthorised. 

4.  The procedure for giving consent shall be agreed between the payer and the payment service provider. 
Member  States  shall  ensure  that,  without  prejudice  to  Article  58,  in  the  case  of  an  unauthorised  payment 
transaction,  the  payer's  payment  service  provider  refunds  to  the  payer  immediately  the  amount  of  the 
unauthorised payment transaction and, where applicable, restores the debited payment account to the state in 
which it would have been had the unauthorised payment transaction not taken place. 
Further  financial  compensation  may  be  determined  in  accordance  with  the  law  applicable  to  the  contract 
concluded between the payer and his payment service provider. 
Member  States  shall  ensure  that  a  payer  is  entitled  to  a  refund  from  his  payment  service  provider  of  an 
authorised  payment  transaction  initiated  by  or  through  a  payee  which  has  already  been  executed,  if  the 
following conditions are met: 

the  authorisation  did  not  specify  the  exact  amount  of  the  payment  transaction  when  the 

(a) 
authorisation was made; and  
(b) 
the  amount  of  the  payment  transaction  exceeded  the  amount  the  payer  could  reasonably  have 
expected taking into account his previous spending pattern, the conditions in his framework contract and 
relevant  provider's  request,  the  payer  shall  provide  factual  elements  relating  to  such  conditions.  The 
refund consists of the full payer and his payment service provider may agree in the framework contract 
that  the  payer  is  entitled  to  a  refund  from  his payment  service  provider  even  though  the  conditions  for 
refund in the first subparagraph are not met. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
E-Commerce 
Directive: 
Art. 5.1 

Art. 5.2 

Art. 6 

Article says 

In addition to other information requirements  established by Community law, Member States shall ensure that 
the service provider shall render easily, directly and permanently accessible to the recipients of the service and 
competent authorities, at least the following information:  

(a) the name of the service provider; 
(b) the geographic address at which the service provider is established; 
(c)  the  details  of  the  service  provider,  including  his  electronic  mail  address,  which  allow  him  to  be 

contacted rapidly and communicated with in a direct and effective manner; 

(d) where  the  service  provider  is  registered  in  a  trade  or  similar  public  register,  the  trade  register  in 
which  the  service  provider  is  entered  and  his  registration  number,  or  equivalent  means  of 
identification in that register; 

(e) where the activity is subject to  an authorisation scheme, the particulars  of the relevant supervisory 

authority; 

(f)  as concerns the regulated professions: 

-  any professional body or similar institution with which the service provider is registered, 
- 
-  a reference to the applicable professional rules in the Member State of establishment and the 

the professional title and the Member State  

means to access them; 

(g) where  the  service  provider  undertakes  an  activity  that  is  subject  to  VAT,  the  identification  number 
referred  to  in  Article  22(1)  of  the  sixth  Council  Directive  77/388/EEC  of  17  May  1977  on  the 
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value 
added tax: uniform basis of assessment. 

In  addition  to  other  information  requirements  established  by  Community  law,  Member  States  shall  at  least 
ensure  that,  where  information  society  services  refer  to  prices,  these  are  to  be  indicated  clearly  and 
unambiguously and, in particular, must indicate whether they are inclusive of tax and delivery costs. 
In addition to other information requirements  established by Community law, Member States shall ensure that 
commercial communications which are part of, or constitute, an information society service comply at least with 
the following conditions: 

(a) the commercial communication shall be clearly identifiable as such; 
(b) the  natural  or  legal  person  on  whose  behalf  the  commercial  communication  is  made  shall  be  clearly 

identifiable; 

(c) promotional offers, such as discounts, premiums and gifts, where permitted in the Member State where 
the service provider is established, shall be clearly identifiable as such, and the  conditions which are to 
be met to qualify for them shall be easily accessible and be presented clearly and unambiguously; 

(d) promotional competitions or games, where permitted in the Member State where the service provider is 
established,  shall  be  clearly  identifiable  as  such,  and  the  conditions  for  participation  shall  be  easily 
accessible and be presented clearly and unambiguously. 

 
 
 
E-Commerce 
Directive: 
Art. 7 

Art. 10.3 

Article says 

1.  In addition to other requirements established by Community law, Member States which permit 
unsolicited commercial communication by electronic mail shall ensure that such commercial 
communication by a service provider established in their territory shall be identifiable clearly and 
unambiguously as such as soon as it is received by the recipient. 

2.  Without  prejudice  to  Directive  97/7/EC  and  Directive  97/66/EC,  Member  States  shall  take  measures  to 
ensure that service providers undertaking unsolicited commercial communications by electronic mail consult 
regularly and respect the opt-out registers in which natural persons not wishing to receive such commercial 
communications can register themselves. 

Contract terms and general conditions provided to the recipient must be made available in a way that allows him 
to store and reproduce them. 

E-Privacy 
Directive: 
Art. 13 

Article says 

Unsolicited communications 

1.  The use of automated calling systems without human intervention(automatic calling machines), facsimile 

machines (fax) or electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing may only be allowed in respect of 
subscribers who have given their prior consent. 

2.  Notwithstanding paragraph 1, where a natural or legal person obtains from its customers their electronic 
contact details for electronic mail, in the context of the sale of a product or a service, in accordance with 
Directive 95/46/EC, the same natural or legal person may use these electronic contact details for direct 
marketing of its own similar products or services provided that customers clearly and distinctly are given 
the opportunity to object, free of charge and in an easy manner, to such use of electronic contact details 
when  they  are  collected  and  on  the  occasion  of  each  message  in  case  the  customer  has  not  initially 
refused such use. 

3.  Member  States  shall  take  appropriate  measures  to  ensure  that,  free  of  charge,  unsolicited 
communications for purposes of direct marketing, in cases other than those referred to in paragraphs 1 
and  2,  are  not  allowed  either  without  the  consent  of  the  subscribers  concerned  or  in  respect  of 
subscribers who do not wish to receive these options to be determined by national legislation. 
4.  In any event, the practice of sending electronic mail for purposes of direct marketing disguising or 

concealing the identity of the sender on whose behalf the communication is made, or without a valid 
address to which the recipient may send a request that such communications cease, shall be prohibited. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Data Protection 
Directive: 
Art. 6.1 

Article says 

Member States shall provide that personal data must be: 

(a) processed fairly and lawfully; 
(b) collected  for  specified,  explicit  and  legitimate  purposes  and  not  further  processed  in  a  way 
incompatible  with  those  purposes.  Further  processing  of  data  for  historical,  statistical  or  scientific 
purposes shall not be considered as incompatible provided that Member States provide appropriate 
safeguards; 

(c) adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or 

further processed; 

(d) accurate  and,  where  necessary,  kept  up  to  date;  every  reasonable  step  must  be  taken  to  ensure 
that  data  which  are  inaccurate  or  incomplete,  having  regard  to  the  purposes  for  which  they  were 
collected or for which they are further processed, are erased or rectified; 

(e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the 
purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further processed. Member States 
shall  lay  down  appropriate  safeguards  for  personal  data  stored  for  longer  periods  for  historical, 
statistical or scientific use. 

Art. 7  

It shall be for the controller to ensure that paragraph 1 is complied with. 
Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if: 

(a) the data subject has unambiguously given his consent; or 
(b) processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to 

take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract; or 

(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject; or 
(d) processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject; or 
(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise 

of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom the data are disclosed; or 

(f)  processing  is  necessary  for  the  purposes  of  the  legitimate interests  pursued  by  the  controller  or  by  the 
third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where such interests are overridden by the 
interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection under Article 1 
(1). 

Art. 14 

The data subject's right to object 
Member States shall grant the data subject the right: 

(a) at  least  in  the  cases  referred  to  in  Article  7  (e)  and  (f),  to  object  at  any  time  on  compelling  legitimate 
grounds  relating  to  his  particular  situation  to  the  processing  of  data  relating  to  him,  save  where 
otherwise provided by national legislation. Where there is a justified objection, the processing instigated 
by the controller may no longer involve those data; 

(b)  to  object,  on  request  and  free  of  charge,  to  the  processing  of  personal  data  relating  to  him  which  the 
controller  anticipates  being  processed  for  the  purposes  of  direct  marketing,  or  to  be  informed  before 

 
 
 
Data Protection 
Directive: 

Article says 

personal data are disclosed for the first time to third parties or used on their behalf for the purposes of 
direct  marketing,  and  to  be  expressly  offered  the  right  to  object  free  of  charge  to  such  disclosures  or 
uses. 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that data subjects are aware of the existence of the 
right referred to in the first subparagraph of (b). 

Consumer Sales 
Directive: 
Art. 2.1 

Nutrition and 
Health Claims 
Regulation: 
Art. 3 

Article says 

The seller must deliver goods to the consumers which are in conformity with the contract of sale. 

Article says 

Nutrition  and  health  claims  may  be  used  in  the  labelling,  presentation  and  advertising  of  foods  placed  on  the 
market  in  the  Community  only  if  they  comply  with  the  provisions  of  this  Regulation.  Without  prejudice  to 
Directives 2000/13/EC and 84/450/EEC, the use of nutrition and health claims shall not: 

(a) be false, ambiguous or misleading; 
(…) 

Art. 5.1 

The use of nutrition and health claims shall only be permitted if the following conditions are fulfilled: 

(a) the presence, absence or reduced content in a food or category of food of a nutrient or other substance 
in  respect  of  which  the  claim  is  made  has  been  shown  to  have  a  beneficial  nutritional  or  physiological 
effect, as established by generally accepted scientific evidence; 

(…) 

 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

9. Annex stakeholder survey and workshop 

9.1. 

Introduction 

The purpose of the stakeholder survey is to describe the context, by describing the legal 
framework  and  by  summarising  what  is  already  known  from  the  literature  or  by 
stakeholders dealing with the issue. The focus is on free trials and subscription traps from 
online  sales  for  four  key  markets,  but  insights  about  similar  practices  from  other  sales 
channels and other markets are also identified.  

GfK  Belgium  conducted  extensive  desk  research  and  undertook  an  EU-wide  stakeholder 
survey  in  order  to  map  out  the  current  situation  with  respect  to  the  legal  framework, 
consumer problems and to explore consumer organisation/authority actions undertaken in 
order  to  combat  misleading  free  trials.  A  questionnaire  was  provided  to  the  partners  in 
the  European  Consumer  Centres  (ECC)  and  Consumer  Protection  Cooperation  (CPC) 
network,  and  other  organisations  at  EU-level.  In  addition, interviews  with  consumer  and 
sector  organisations  at  the  national  level  were  conducted  (i.e.  consumer  organisations, 
national anti-fraud help desks, business organisations). 

Relevant organisations were identified and were sent an e-mail invitation to participate in 
an online survey. After some weeks, those who had not responded received a reminder. A 
very  low  response  rate  from  consumer  and  business  organisations  was  achieved  and 
other  organisations  in  this  category  were  invited  to  participate  in  the  study.  Several 
payment  companies  were  also  invited  several  times  to  take  part  of  the  study,  but 
ultimately none participated. All organisations were invited to share the (open) link to the 
survey with other people who could contribute to the study.  

In total, 52 interviews were conducted, either online, by phone or face-to-face.  

In  addition  a  workshop  with  CPC  authorities  and  ECC  was  held  to  discuss  consumer 
problems and possible action to combat misleading free trials. 

9.2.  Results 

9.2.1.

  Problems related to (misleading) free trials 

Three in four stakeholders had been confronted with or were aware of problems related to 
misleading  free  trials  in  the  past  year.  This  means  a  minority  of  stakeholders  were  not 
aware  or  had  not  been  confronted  with  problems  related  to  misleading  free  trials  in  the 
past year. The ECCs in Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania had not 
received  any  complaints;  neither  had  the  Consumer  Agency  in  Iceland,  the  Czech 
Agriculture  and  Food  Inspection  Authority,  the  Hungarian  Authority  for  Consumer 
Protection, IAB Europe, the State Consumer Rights Protection Authority, the Commission 
for Consumer Protection in Lithuania or Test-Aankoop in Belgium. 

81 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Only  a  minority  of  23%  among  all  stakeholders  and  21%  within  the  group  of  ECC 
members  (i.e.  Greece,  Cyprus,  Bulgaria,  Hungary  and  Slovakia)  did  not  register  any 
complaints regarding misleading free trials. 

Most national authorities in the  ECC and CPC network are thus familiar with the topic of 
(misleading) free trials. For example, the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman increased its 
focus on online free trials in February 2015. Investigating 52 websites, they identified 49 
including  misleading  free  trials,  especially  in  the  health  and  cosmetics  sector.  Business 
organisations  were  also  familiar  with  the  phenomenon  of  misleading  free  trials  and 
subscription traps.  

According  to  the  stakeholders  that  were  familiar  with  misleading  free  trials  and 
subscription  traps,  the  main  problems  are  unclear  or  misleading  pre-contractual 
information  which  leads  to  poor  awareness  of  consumers  when  entering  into  a  paid 
subscription15,  and  consumers  experiencing  difficulties  unsubscribing.  Half  of  them 
mentioned  these  as  one  of  the  main  problems  in  relation  to  misleading  free  trials  and 
subscription traps.  

“Consumers  do  not  realise  that  they  have  inadvertently  signed  up  to  an 
expensive  and  recurring  monthly  subscription,  only  becoming  aware  of  this 
on-going  commitment  upon  noticing  large  sums  debited  from  their  credit 
cards  via  a  ‘continuous  payment  authority’  in  favour  of  the  trader.  This 
material  information  about  the  full  scope  of  the  offer  is  often  obscured  or 
buried  in  the  general  terms  and  conditions  and  is  frequently  missed  by 
consumers.  A  key  difficulty  is  identifying  who  is  behind  the  website  offering 
the product for sale. If a returns address is indicated at all on the website, it 
is  generally  that  of  a  order  fulfilment  third  party  company  with  no  contact 
details of the company behind the offer typically provided. Consumers report 
having  significant  difficulty  in  contacting  the  company  in  order  to  cancel  the 
subscription due to no contact details being provided or a lack of response to 
published contact details.’’ (ECC Ireland) 

“The  most  common  problem  is  that  consumers  are  not  aware  they  are 
starting  a  subscription  or  that  additional  charges  will  be  taken.  Most 
consumers  expect  that  the  product  they  receive  is  free  for  a  small  postage 
cost.  Consumers  then  find  it  extremely  difficult  to  make  contact  with  the 
trader, return goods and obtain a refund.’’ (ECC UK) 

The main problems in the point of view of the stakeholders are reported in the following 
table.  

15 Breach of article 6 UCPD and articles 6.1 and 8 CRD. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Table 8: 
Type of problem 

Types of problems faced by the stakeholder organisations 

Customers not being aware of starting a subscription 

Consumers having difficulties to unsubscribe 

The customer being requested to pay with aggressive debt collection 
methods 

The terms and conditions not being clear or respected by the 
seller/provider 

The trader sending goods that the client did not order 

The customer not being able to find contact information or the customer 
service being poor 

Consumers not being able to return a product and get reimbursed 

The customer receiving extra charges on their payment card without 
their consent 

Delivery costs or final price for the trail or the test product being higher 
than displayed on website 

Customers being automatically redirected to a website in another 
country or of other intermediaries 

Consumers receiving products of no use / no value 

Non-delivery of the free products or services ordered 

Personal data being misused 

The test product or service being of lower quality than advertised or not 
working at all 

Payment card details being stolen 

Other problems 
Source: Stakeholder survey N problems=166 

# 

24 

23 

% 

14.5% 

13.9% 

19 

11.4% 

16 

16 

15 

14 

14 

7 

4 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

5 

9.6% 

9.6% 

9% 

8.4% 

8.4% 

4.2% 

2.5% 

1.8% 

1.8% 

0.6% 

0.6% 

0.6% 

3% 

Another  problem  is  the  use  of  aggressive  debt  collection  methods  by  traders  or  debt 
collection agencies acting on their behalf, requesting customers to pay. In 11% of cases, 
this problem is indicated as one of the main problems related to misleading free trials and 
subscription traps.  

Around one in ten stakeholders indicate that problems arise when traders send goods that 
the  consumer  did  not  order  (inertia  selling)16,  when  there  is  a  lack  of  contact 
information17 or the customer service is poor, and when customers receive goods that he 
did not order. 

16 Prohibited by article 27 CRD as well as point 29 of Annex I to the UCPD.  
17 Breach of article 5 E-Commerce Directive and article 6.1 CRD.  

83 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Several  problems  are  mentioned  in  the  typical  example  described  by  the  Swedish 
Consumer Agency: 

“A typical example is a consumer  who has  visited a website  where he, for a 
very  small  amount  of  money,  has  been  offered  to  buy  a  trial  sample  of  diet 
pills or some kind of healthcare product. The consumer has paid for the offer 
by  providing  his  credit  or  debit  card  number.  Soon  after  the  order  the 
consumer´s account has been charged for more money and the trader claims 
that  the  consumer  has  ordered  a  subscription.  The  information  about  the 
subscription  is  often  hidden  in  the  terms  and conditions.  And  the  link  to  the 
terms and conditions are sometimes hidden at the bottom of the website and 
sometimes far away from the order form. The consumer also can experience 
problems  getting  in  contact  with  the  trader  in  order  to  exercise  his  right  of 
withdrawal,  or  to  stop  new  deliveries,  or  to  reclaim  the  money.  Sometimes 
the  consumer  doesn’t  receive  any  products  but  his  account  will  still  be 
charged. The true identity of the trader is seldom presented on the website.’’ 
(The Swedish Consumer Agency) 

The  medium  used  to  lure  the  customer  to  a  free  trial  or  subscription  can  be  a  simple 
printed  advertisement  in  a  magazine  or  a  pop-up  message  on  social  network  platforms 
such  as  Facebook.  This  latter  medium  has  become  more  important,  especially  for 
companies  with  malicious  intent,  offering  misleading  free  trials  or  subscription  traps.  On 
social  networks,  consumers  lower  their  critical  judgment  when  they  believe  friends 
recommend a product18. They do not just see an ad, but an ad that is presented as liked 
by friends. Often, the cost and the length of the subscription consumers are subscribing 
to  are  only  mentioned  in  the  terms  of  services,  which  are  difficult  to  understand  and  to 
find19. This is illustrated by the following quote of the ECC in The Netherlands: 

“Consumers see an ad on Facebook, are referred to the traders’ website and 
see  the  trial  product  they  can  order  by  only  paying  for  the  delivery  costs. 
Never  in  this  offer  is  it  mentioned  that  consumer  agree  to  subsequent 
sendings nor are they informed about the costs involved of these subsequent 
sendings.  Consumers  are  of  the  opinion  that  they  only  apply  for  a  trial 
product and this is a  onetime  offer. Apparently this important information is 
hidden  in  the  terms  and  conditions.  However  for  the  consumer  this  is  not 
clear  when  entering  into  an  agreement  and  mentioning  the  subscription  in 
the  terms  and  conditions  is  not  sufficient.  Furthermore  directly  on  the 
Homepage  of  the  traders  website  consumers  can  fill  in  their  personal  data, 
when they have done so they tick the box for the trial product and press the 
button "Buy Now" and have directly contracted and do not see an overview of 
what they are about to purchase. Afterwards sometimes also additional costs 
(delivery) are added.” (ECC The Netherlands) 

18   Watchlist (AT) alert “Facebook-Betrug”  http://www.watchlist-internet.at/facebook-betrug/facebook-

angeblicher-pound500-amazon-gutschein-fuehrt-introjaner-falle/  

19  Forbrukerradet”Hazy  terms  in  the  Cloud”,  27/02/2014  http://www.forbrukerradet.no/annet/tester-og-
kj%C3%B8petips/unders%C3%B8kelser/hazy-terms-in-the-cloud  This  information  should  be  presented 
prominently before the order is placed (art. 6.1 and 8 CRD). 

84 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

The  incidence  of  problems  (illegal  or  dubious  practices)  related  to  free  trials is  higher  in 
some  specific  sectors,  lower  in  others.  The  following  table  gives  an  overview  of  the 
perspective  of  stakeholders  on  the  incidence  of  problems  per  sector  (specific  service  or 
product).  

Table 9: 

Incidence of problems (misleading free trials) per sector 

Incidence of problems (number and row percentage) 

Sector (total 
number of 
mentioned 
companies) 

Dating services 
(35) 

Cosmetics 
healthcare 
products (36) 
Food and 
health 
supplements 
(36) 

Cloud based 
storage 
services (35) 

Digital services 
via mobile 
devices and 
apps (35) 

Very  
few 

3  
(8.8%) 

1 
(2.8%) 

Few 

Average 

More than 
average 

Many 

8 
(23.5%) 

4 
(11.8%) 

6 
(17.6%) 

6 
(16.7%) 

6 
(16.7%) 

3 
(8.3%) 

10 
(29.4%) 

17 
(47.2%) 

Don't  
know 

3 
(8.8%) 

3 
(8.3%) 

2 
(5.6%) 

4 
(11.1%) 

3 
(8.3%) 

4 
(11.1%) 

17 
(47.2%) 

6 
(16.7%) 

10 
(29.4%) 

3 
(8.8%) 

2 
(5.9%) 

2 
(5.9%) 

2 
(5.9%) 

15 
(44.1%) 

4 
(11.4%) 

9 
(27.7%) 

5 
(14.3%) 

5 
(14.3%) 

3 
(8.6%) 

9 
(27.7%) 

Music and film 
(35) 

7 
(20%) 

6 
(17.1%) 

5 
(14.3%) 

3 
(8.6%) 

Astrology (35) 

11 
(32.4%) 

5 
(14.7%) 

2 
(5.9%) 

1 
(2.9%) 

Cooking 
recipes (35 

11 
(32.4%) 

4 
(11.8%) 

2 
(5.9%) 

5 
(14.7%) 

Sales to clear 
stocks (35) 

Other (14) 

Total (331) 

9 
(26.5%) 

3 
(21.4%) 

61 
(19%) 

3 
(8.8%) 

1 
(7.1%) 

49 
(15%) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

14 
(40%) 

15 
(44.1%) 

12 
(35.2%) 

18 
(52.9%) 

1 
(2.9%) 

3 
(8.8%) 

2 
(14.3%) 

32 
(10%) 

1 
(7.1%) 

33 
(10%) 

4 
(28.6%) 

3 
(21.4%) 

53 
(16%) 

98 
(30%) 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

More  stakeholders  mentioned  that  many  problems  due  to  misleading  free  trials  or 
subscription  traps  occur  in  the  sectors  of  food  and  health  supplements,  cosmetics  and 
health  products  and  dating  services.  Knowledge  or  awareness  in  some  sectors  was  less: 
the  majority  of  stakeholders  replied  they  did  not  know  the  incidence  of  problems  of 
misleading free trials. 

At  the  country  level,  the  volume  of  misleading  free  trials  seems  to  vary.  In  some 
countries, misleading free trials and subscription traps are reported only sporadically. In 
Croatia,  the  ECC  received  only  one  or  two  complaints  in  the  past  two  years.  In  other 
countries,  misleading  free  trials  occur  very  frequently.  The  ECC  in  Finland  received 
thousands  of  consumer  complaints  over  the  last  couple  of  years.  The  ECC  in  Sweden 
reported that 40% of all their cases related to subscription traps. Overall, free trial scams 
are  a  known  problem  to  European  Consumer  Centres  and  other  national  authorities  and 
consumer protection organisations.2021  

The  problem  of  misleading  free  trials  and  subscription  traps  is  also  a  cross-border 
phenomenon,  with  consumers  and  traders  residing  in  different  countries.  Furthermore, 
traders are not easy to identify and locate. 

“The  difficulty  in  identifying  and  locating  the  companies  and  individuals 
involved in the sale of subscription traps has hampered effective enforcement 
and  enabled  the  problem  to  grow.  In  many  cases  the  traders  involved  are 
located  outside  the  EU,  placing  them  beyond  the  reach  of  European 
enforcement authorities.” (ECC Ireland) 

“The difficulty to find the correct person behind the company especially if the 
websites  the  company  hosts  are  situated  in  several  countries.”  (ECC  The 
Netherlands) 

20   “Fraud  in  cross-border  e-commerce”,  ECC-Net  http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/docs/ecc-report-cross-

border-e-commerce_en.pdf  

21   The  Telegraph  (4/3/2015):  Watchdog  bans  misleading  Amazon  Prime  ‘free  trial’  ad.  Retrieved  14/4/2015 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/11448724/Watchdog-bans-Amazon-
Prime-free-trial-advert.html  

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Stakeholders  have  different  opinions  on  which consumers  are  most  likely  to  be  trapped. 
However,  most  of  them  agree  that  any  consumer  can  potentially  be  trapped  or  be  a 
victim of a misleading free trial.  

Often, the profile of the victim differs per product offered. For instance, when we consider 
age, both youngsters and elderly can be vulnerable:  

“It depends on the type of scam. If you think about the in app purchases in 
online  games  advertised  as  free  the  most  vulnerable  consumers  are  people 
under  18.  But  vulnerable  are  also  elderly  people  who  are  not  very 
experienced in using internet.” (ECC Italy) 

When  we  consider  gender,  both  males  and  females  can  be  trapped  into  misleading  free 
trials:  

“Our experience is that a wide range of consumers are affected by this issue. 
While  initially  the  vast  majority  of  complainants  to  our  service  were  female, 
we have seen an increase in the number of male consumers affected due to 
the emergence of free trials of purported muscle building supplements. Given 
the  nature  of  the  products  typically  sold  in  this  manner  the  most  vulnerable 
consumers  are  likely  to  be  those  that  are  most  insecure  as  to  their  physical 
appearance.” (ECC Ireland) 

The conclusion that everyone can become a victim is phrased by the Finnish Competition 
and Consumer Authority as follows: 

“It seems that there is no particular group more vulnerable than others, but 
almost anyone at the right time and under right circumstances (i.e. when one 
is bored, alone/lonely and browsing through the internet) can be "trapped".” 
(Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority) 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

9.2.2.

  Consumer detriment 

When  the  free  trial  is  misleading  or  traps  consumers  into  an  unwanted  subscription, 
consumer  detriment  often  includes  a  financial  loss,  but  also  often  a  loss  of  time  and  an 
emotional detriment.  

  Financial  loss:  23  stakeholders  (44%)  report  that  consumers  mention  there  is  a 

financial loss due to being misled by a free trial or subscription 

  Loss of time: 23 stakeholders (44%) report that consumers mention there is a loss 

of time due to being misled by a free trial or subscription 

  Emotional detriment: 25 stakeholders (48%) report that consumers mention there 

is an emotional detriment due to being misled by a free trial or subscription 

Further detriment can include a loss of data, a loss of confidence and trust, and an impact 
on  physical  or  mental  health.  Some  quotes  are  reported  below,  that  make  these 
consequences of misleading free trials and subscriptions concrete: 

“Emotional  detriment  as  consumers  expect  the  ECC  to  solve  their  problem 
which is in 98% of cases not possible. Financial losses amounting to anything 
between  80-280€  if  the  consumer  decides  to  pay.  Loss  of  time  and 
frustration,  also  emotional  detriment  as  the  trader  is  using  an  invoicing 
company or a debt collection agency to collect the payments. Authorities are 
often  able  to  convince  the  invoicers/debt  collection  agencies  that  the  claims 
lack clear legal basis. This, in most cases leads to the claim being returned to 
the  original  trader  who  then  makes  an  agreement  with  another  collection 
agency.  Consumers  are  confused  when  multiple  collectors  send  them  debt 
collection  letters  -  often  making  it  a  point  to  stress  the  possibility  that  the 
consumer  will  end  up  losing  his  good  credit  score.  Many  consumers  end  up 
paying.” (ECC Finland) 

“The biggest detriment is financial loss as the monthly costs involved can be 
quite large (over €100) leading to significant loss if the charges are not noted 
for  a  number  of  months.  We  have  been  contacted  by  consumers  who  have 
lost  up  to  €1000.  Given  the  nature  of  the  products  prevalent  in  this  sector 
(i.e.  weight  loss/anti  age  supplements)  consumers’  insecurities  are  often 
exploited giving rise to emotional detriment. Considering the lack of oversight 
and regulation of the ingredients and manufacture of these products, there is 
clearly  a  significant  risk  to  consumers’  health  from  ingesting  these  capsules 
though  this  has  not  been  a  particularly  common  complaint  reported  to  our 
organisation.” (ECC Ireland) 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

9.2.3.

  Actions and recommendations from stakeholders 

Several  national  authorities  and  other  (consumer)  organisations  haven  undertaken 
actions  to  combat  misleading  free  trials  and  subscription  traps.  These  often  revolve 
around three pillars:  

  Actions towards consumers (raising awareness and handling complaints) 

  Cooperation with intermediaries 

  Legal actions against fraudulent companies (enforcement) 

First of all, consumers’ awareness of problematic practices associated with free trials can 
be raised via several media. The aim is to prevent consumers from being trapped, and to 
help them take action when they are trapped. Specific information for citizens is provided 
on  media  such  as  websites22,  Facebook23,  or  YouTube24.  For  example,  a  checklist  for 
consumers  is  provided  before  purchasing  online,  lists  of  known  free  trial  scams  are 
reported,  and  so  on.252627  When  consumers  are  trapped,  complaints  are  handled  and 
consumers are informed about which actions they can take, for instance to-do lists after 
entering a free trial scam28 or template letters to unregister from free trials.29  

“We usually circulate alerts by sending out press releases, by posting update 
and warning on our website and by using social networks.” (ECC Italy) 

“We  inform  consumers  through  news  messages  on  our  website  and  on  our 
Facebook  site.  We  do  not  name  and  shame  but  we  mention  the  type  of 
complaints  we  receive  and  advise  consumers  how  to  act  when  they  have  a 
similar complaint. If our advice does not solve the matter we  mention in the 
message that consumers can contact us and we can assist them in trying to 
solve their complaint.” (ECC the Netherlands) 

22   ECC  Denmark  (9/7/2014):  The  Danish  Consumer  Ombudsman  is  ready  to  intervene  against  “subscription 
traps.  Retrieved  14/04/2015  http://www.consumereurope.dk/E-Commerce/Sample-packages/Subscription-
traps  

23   https://www.facebook.com/FODEconomie?fref=photo or https://www.facebook.com/kuluttajaneuvonta.fi  
24   Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority https://www.facebook.com/kuluttajaneuvonta.fi?_rdr  
25   Nordic ECCs, March 2013 “Too good to be true? It probably is! Unfair commercial practices and unsolicited 
http://www.konsumenteuropa.se/globalassets/amnesomraden/handla-pa-

goods” 
internet/too_good_to_be_true_it_probably_is_unfair_commercial_practices_and_unsolicited_goods.pdf  
26   Watchlist  (AT)  alert  for  “Abzocke-Websites”  http://www.watchlist-internet.at/abo-fallen/bekannte-abzocke-

websites-auf-einen-blick/  

27  ECC-Net 

Internet 

fraud  & 

scams  webpage.  Retrieved  14  April  2014  http://www.europe-

consommateurs.eu/en/consumer-topics/online-shopping/internet-fraud-scams/  

28   Nordic ECCs, ibid. 
29   Which? Consumer Rights: Provides letter to cancel a contract after a free trial period   

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/action/letter-to-cancel-a-contract-after-a-free trial-period  

89 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

An  example  is  the  awareness  campaign  of 
the  Dutch  Authority  for  Consumers  and 
Markets.  In  the  Netherlands,  a  campaign 
“Niet  besteld?  Geef  geen  geld!”  informed 
consumers that they are not obliged to pay 
for  a  product  or  service  if  they  did  not 
order  it.  This  is  targeted  at  vulnerable 
groups,  such  as  senior  consumers.  In  the  recent  years,  a  clear  rise  of  misleading  free 
trials  offered  online  and  a  decrease  of  telephone  malpractices  has  been  observed. 
Therefore, the role of social media to inform consumers and raise awareness  of possible 
pitfalls  is  growing.  For  instance,  videos  on  YouTube  demonstrate  misleading  cases  and 
the actions that the consumers themselves can take. 

 Another example is the awareness campaign of 
the  Belgian  Federal  Public  Service,  Economic 
Inspection.  In  Belgium,  a  misleading  trial  was 
set  up  by  the  authorities  themselves  to  inform 
consumers  about  their  behaviour  online.  It 
imitated  a  contest  to  win  a  smartphone  and 
consumers  were  misled  into  giving  information 
terms  and 
without  being  aware  of 
conditions, which included for instance watering 
plants  at  the  offices  of  the  Belgian  Federal 

the 

Public Service, Economic Inspection. 

During a workshop with stakeholders, discussions regarding actions to support consumers 
highlighted  “raising  awareness”,  “naming  and  shaming  alerts”,  “actions  towards 
vulnerable groups” and “use of ADR/ODR”. 

Raising awareness via different channels, for instance via media campaigns can assist in 
prevention. Targeting consumer groups, one can help consumers to recognise misleading 
trials, perhaps through a checklist or with a mark (button) that indicates whether a trader 
can  be  trusted  or  not.  Furthermore,  FAQ  sections  on  websites  may  help  by  giving  more 
power to the consumer to understand what is misleading and what is not, which actions 
they can take, providing information about the chargeback option and so on. 

Alerting  consumers  via  a  naming  and  shaming  approach  is  another  possible  approach. 
Even  without  shaming  traders,  one  can  provide  neutral  information  on  traders  and  give 
factual  information,  naming  the  trader.  Furthermore,  collecting  evidence  by  asking 
consumers  about  their  experiences  on  public  social  media  fora  can  be  a  useful  action  to 
take.  

Specific actions to warn vulnerable groups in the population to read terms and conditions 
and to check for contact details of the trader is another approach that can be taken; and 
the opportunity to involve local neighbourhood centres can be explored. 

More  generally,  one  can  provide  arguments  to  help  consumers  with  their  specific  case. 
However,  as  the  amount  of  money  that  relates  to  misleading  trials  is  limited,  the 
experience with ADR/ODR is also limited for consumers. Furthermore, information on the 
trader (which is often lacking) is necessary to undertake this action and the trader has to 
give consent to accept the procedure.  

90 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Second,  besides  the  legal  obligations  directly  applicable  to  intermediaries,  cooperation 
with intermediaries can be a means to combat misleading free trials and make consumers 
aware  of  problematic  practices  and  traders  or  brands  involved.  Intermediaries  can  be 
social  media  companies  such  as  Facebook  or  Twitter,  but  can  also  relate  to  credit  card 
providers and banks. 

In  the  UK,  the  Consumers  and  Markets  Authority30  and  Trading  Standards  are  currently 
focusing  on  social  media,  trying to involve intermediaries  such  as  Facebook  and  Google. 
The  National  Trading  Standards  eCrime  Team  protects  consumers  and  safeguards 
business. They noticed an increase of almost 400% between 2010 and 2014 in consumer 
complaints  regarding  Facebook  (counterfeit  products,  unsafe  products,  misleading 
advertising, etc). Therefore, the eCrime Team engaged with Facebook representatives, to 
receive information on the subscribers that offered misleading information via Facebook. 
Facebook  did  not  acknowledge  the  significance  of  the  problem  at  first,  but  now  has 
agreed  a  formal  procedure  to  gather  information  and  trace  suspects.  The  notice  and 
takedown  procedure  will  be  extended  beyond  IP  related  issues  to  include  scams  and 
misleading  advertising (such  as  the  one  presented  below).  Other  social  media  operators 
will  also  be  contacted  by  the  National  Trading  Standards  eCrime  Team  for  similar 
collaborations (Instagram, Twitter, etc.).  

 Cooperation with banks and payment service providers has proven to be an efficient way 
to stop problematic practices and infringing companies in certain situations31. Consumers 
can  complain  to  their  credit  card  provider  in  the  case  of  an  incorrect  or  unauthorised 
transfer,  and  request  the  full  amount  back.  For  instance, 
in  Norway,  chargeback  is  well  used.  Chargeback  is  the 
technical term used by international card schemes for the 
refunding  process  for  a  transaction  carried  out  by  card, 
following  the  violation  of  the  scheme’s  rules.  Norwegian 
authorities reached out to Norwegian banks, arguing they 
are  obliged  to  reimburse  consumers  when  there  is  no 
valid  subscription  contract  between  the  trader  and  the 

30   The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) was a non-ministerial government department of the United Kingdom, which 
enforced both consumer protection and competition law, acting as the UK's economic regulator. On April 1st 
2014, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) was established combining many of the functions of the 
OFT and the Competition Commission and superseding both. 

31 Nordic ECCs “Chargeback in the EU/EEA: A solution to get your money back when a trader does not respect 

your consumer rights” http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/docs/chargeback_report_en.pdf  

91 

 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

consumer.  Therefore,  withdrawals  from  consumers’  bank  accounts  are  unauthorised. 
Payment  processing  companies  were  very  forthcoming,  took  the  matter  seriously  and 
acted accordingly, in order to help the consumers. 

During  the  stakeholder  workshop,  discussions  on  actions  towards  intermediaries  related 
to three main topics: ‘Chargeback’, ‘Follow the Money’ and ‘Sharing Responsibility’.  

Chargeback.  Stakeholders  mentioned  cooperation  with  payment  companies  and  banks: 
facilitated  redress  through  chargeback,  exchange  and  access  to  information.  There  is 
consensus  that  one  has  to  invest  in  cooperation  with  banks  and  card  providers.  If  these 
have  as  yet  little  experience  with  misleading  free  trials  or  subscription  traps,  one  could 
start  with  clearly  illegal  cases  and  gradually  evolve  towards  chargeback  for  other  cases. 
Furthermore, one should empower consumers to keep going to their banks for help. This 
can be done, for example by providing the consumer with documents and information to 
strengthen  their  claim  towards  the  bank.  Bundling  information  on  the  same  misleading 
case will also help to convince the bank to chargeback.  

Shared  Responsibility.  Social  media  are  the  platforms  where  the  advertising  often  takes 
place  and  as  such  requirements  of  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practices  Directive  may  apply 
directly  to  such  intermediaries.  Moreover  cooperation  of  consumer  protection  authorities 
with  social  media  is  an  important  topic  to  share  information,  identify  and  combat 
misleading  free  trials,  possibly  by  removing  misleading  free  trials  from  circulating  on 
social  media  with  the  potential  to  trap  many  consumers  even  in  short  periods  of  time. 
However intermediates in general, and social media in particular, do not  always respond 
to  request  for  information  or  action  ,  and  they  may  not  provide  all  the  required 
information that consumer protection agencies need. A gap in legislation might exist, as 
enforcement  agencies  argue  they  need  more  tools  and  powers  to  allow  them  to  access 
more  swiftly  crucial information  on  trader(s)  behind  a  scam  and  be  able  to  do  their  job. 
Indeed, the most effective way to stop fraud is at its origin, by tracing trader(s) involved 
to focus on where the money is made (follow the money). 

Social  media,  and  by  extension  other  online  intermediaries,  should  be  aware  that  they 
have  a  responsibility  when  misleading  free  trials  are  advertised  via  their  services.  Their 
reactive behaviour should become proactive. 

By  discussing  several  successful  national  initiatives  of  cooperation  with  intermediaries, 
the general conclusion of the stakeholders is the following: the most effective focus is on 
preventing  problematic  practices  and  fraud  by  traders  from  spreading  over  the  intenet, 
rather  than  on  informing  and  educating  consumers.  In  relation  to  the  identification  of 
responsible traders which is difficult to obtain from various intermediaries, some changes 
to  the  existing  legislation  are  required  to  provide  enforcement  authorities  more  tools  to 
do their job. 

Third, legal actions can be taken against fraudulent companies. Many national authorities 
apply this enforcement  strategy.  In particular, the  Consumer Rights Directive introduced 
certain  measures  to  regulate  the  relationship  between  businesses  and  consumers.  In 
particular,  the  new  rules32  make  it  easier  to  conclude  online  contracts  (including  cross-
border contracts in the European Union). The directive also imposes some obligations on 
businesses  in  order  to  protect  consumers.  For  instance,  under  Article  8(2)  of  the 

32 The rules apply to most business to consumer contracts concluded after 13 June 2014. 

92 

 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Consumer  Rights  Directive  (the  so-called  “button  solution”),  online  businesses  must 
clearly inform consumers when they are about to enter a legally binding agreement that 
includes  a  payment  obligation  from  the  consumer.  Words  such  as  “order  with  an 
obligation  to  pay”  (rather  than  “register”  or  “try”)  must  be  presented  to  a  consumer 
before  an  order  is  placed.  This  Directive  also  requires  traders  to  indicate  in  a  clear  and 
prominent  manner,  and  directly  before  he  places  the  order  the  main  elements  of  the 
contract  (main  characteristics  of  the  goods  or  service;  the  total  price  of  the  goods  or 
services,  inclusive  of  taxes  and  any  additional  costs;  the  contracts  duration  and  where 
applicable the minimum duration of the consumers’ obligations under the contract and the 
conditions for terminating the contract). This information should be presented in the close 
vicinity  of  the  confirmation  requested  for  the  placing  of  the  order  (recital  39  Consumer 
Rights  Directive).  If  the  trader  has  not  complied  with  these  obligations,  the  consumer  is 
not  bound  by  the  contract.  However,  implementing  the  law  is  not  easy  as  noncompliant 
websites are often exposed only after complaints are received33.  

For instance, the Consumer Ombudsman in Norway checks websites on subscription traps 
to  protect  vulnerable  groups  in  society.  They  address  the  traders  using  screenshots  of 
their websites and refer to the legal framework and the possible infringement penalty for 
not following, for instance, the Cancellation Act. They give an example in which a button 
was  not  marked  in  an  easily  readable  manner  and  the  trader  did  not  ensure  that  the 
consumer expressly acknowledges that the order entails an obligation to pay. Therefore, 
the consumer is not bound by the contract. The trader altered the website to comply with 
this regulation. These strict and explanatory letters send by the Consumer Ombudsman in 
Norway will also continue to be send in 2016 to avoid misleading free trials. 

National  legislation  can  further  add  to  the  EU  regulatory  framework.  In  the  Netherlands 
the  “Wet  Van  Dam”  prevents  automatic  renewal  of  subscriptions.  On  the  basis  of  this 
legislation,  countries  are  also  bringing  cases  to  the  courts.  For  instance,  in  Finland,  the 
Consumer  Ombudsman  asked  the  police  to  investigate  the  operations  of  certain 
companies  for  which  they  received  hundreds  of  complaints  regarding  misleading  offers 
and subscription contracts.34 Similar court cases were introduced in Germany35, the UK36 

33   Die 

Welt 

(26/08/2013) 

“Das 

große 

Comeback 

der 

Abofallen-Betrüger” 

http://www.welt.de/finanzen/verbraucher/article131573141/Das-grosse-Comeback-der-Abofallen-
Betrueger.html  In  Germany,  92%  of  problematic  pages  disappeared,  leading  to  a  major  decrease  of 
complaints to the ECC. 

34   Finnish  Competition  and  Consumer  Authority  (2014):  Finnish  Consumer  Ombudsman’s  Newsletter:  “Police 
practices” 

marketing 
asked 
http://www.anpdm.com/article/41455B477245425A457446415F4571/13351439/2038871  

investigate 

misleading 

claims 

to 

of 

93 

 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

and Italy37. In addition, countries collaborate with each other, as misleading free trials are 
often deployed in several countries.3839 

“We work together with our  ECC to help them  forward  complaints to the CA 
of  the  CPC-network,  in  rare  cases  we  involve  the  competent  criminal 
authorities.”  (Federal  Ministry  of  Labour,  Social  Affairs  and  Consumer 
Protection, Austria) 

During the stakeholder workshop, discussions regarding actions towards traders focussed 
on “monitoring the market”, “investigation”, “naming and shaming”, “communication”. 

Monitoring the market refers to rapid detection websites and social media monitoring. The 
ability to lock the content of a website is not (yet) available at the EU level. It might be a 
useful action to take, especially for smaller countries with limited sources. 

Investigation  relates  to  cross-national  cooperation  to  track  the  company  and  take  legal 
actions,  pooling  of  investigation,  use  of  CPC  Regulation  Article  9  on  cooperation.  The 
intensity  of  enforcement  now  varies  considerably  between  countries.  Furthermore, 
cooperation  is  necessary  (not  only  with  intermediaries,  but  also  with  third  countries)  to 
take  actions  against  traders.  Several  cooperation  systems  already  exist,  yet,  in  some 
countries  with  limited  resources  or  that  give  lower  priority  to  the  phenomenon,  this  can 
be limited. As a consequence, delays in setting up cooperation with these countries give 
traders the opportunity to ‘move’. 

Naming  and  shaming  is  possible  in  some  countries,  but  not  in  others  with  more  strict 
regulations. In some  countries, a court sentence must be made first,  before this type of 
action  can  be  taken.  In  addition  the  temporary  characteristic  of  some  traders  limits  the 
impact of this action. Traders come and go, and their names (and websites) change very 
rapidly. Therefore, this action is only useful when traders are active for a longer period of 
time.  Furthermore,  combined  with  media  attention, it  can  work,  but  without,  consumers 
will not actively search for a naming and shaming list. Nevertheless, CPC authorities can 
share lists and publicise them on their websites. 

Communication  to  traders  from  the  CPC  authorities  and  the  ECC  might  be  a  possible 
action.  Pointing  out  the  existing  rules  and  warning  them  that  the  enforcement  agencies 
take violations seriously might encourage some traders to alter their poor and misleading 
practices. A joint general statement can be taken or a checklist can be provided. 

35   Wilde  Beuger  Solmecke  Rechtsanwälte  (14/08/2013):  “JW  Trading  Systems  rip-off:  Judgment  of  the  LG 
https://www.wbs-law.de/internetrecht/jw-handelssysteme-abzocke-urteil-des-lg-leipzig-liegt-im-

Leipzig” 
volltext-vor-44439/ 

36   International  Consumer 

Protection 

and 

Enforcement  Network,  Retrieved 

14  April 

2014 

http://icpen.org/news/united-kingdom-oft-takes-action-against-online-subscription-operator.html  

37   Autorita  Garante  della  concorrenza  et  del  mercato  (IT),  2012:  http://www.agcm.it/stampa/news/5841-

ps7444-internet-antitrust-sanziona-estesa-limited-con-un-milione-emezzo-di-multe-per-pratiche-
commerciali-scorrette-del-sito-wwwwitalia-programminet.html  

38  http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/cross-border_enforcement_cooperation/index_en.htm 
39   For instance, Nuvoryn used to offer free trials on both its Dutch, French, UK and multilanguage websites 

94 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                     
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

When  a  trader  can  be  identified  and  located,  enforcement  focussing  on  the  button 
approach can be effective, as proven in Germany. 

However,  there  are  some  issues  in  relation  to  actions  towards  traders.  First  of  all, 
information  is  often  lacking.  Traders  are  difficult  to  identify  and  to  contact.  This  raises 
difficulties  both  for  consumers  and  for  enforcement  agencies.  Furthermore,  the  issue  of 
aggressive debt collectors is not a minor problem: one in ten consumers in the consumer 
survey mentioned this as a problem they experienced when ordering a free trial online. 

9.3.  Conclusion 

The  purpose  of  the  stakeholder  survey  was  to  describe  the  context,  using  the  insights 
provided by the stakeholders that have to deal with the issue of misleading free trials and 
subscription traps.  

Three in four stakeholders had been confronted with or were aware of problems related to 
misleading  free  trials.  According  to  the  stakeholders  that  were  familiar  with  misleading 
free  trials  and  subscription  traps,  the  main  problems  were  unclear  or  misleading  pre-
contractual  information  which  leads  to  poor  awareness  of  consumers  when  starting  a 
subscription,  and  consumers  experiencing  difficulties  unsubscribing.  Nonetheless,  the 
conclusion was that anyone could become a victim of misleading free trials and consumer 
traps. Different groups of consumers are vulnerable depending on the type of product and 
service offered. Victims of these misleading free trials experienced detriment  in the form 
of a financial loss, a loss of time and an emotional detriment. 

towards 

fraudulent  companies, 

legal  action  (enforcement) 

Actions  are  taken  to  combat  misleading  free  trials  and  subscription  traps  in  three  main 
ways. Towards consumers: the objectives are raising awareness and handling complaints. 
Towards  intermediaries  such  as  social  media  channels  and  banks:  through  creating 
cooperation.  And 
is 
undertaken.  During  a  workshop,  further  actions  and  recommendations  were  discussed 
with  stakeholders.  The  conclusion  of  the  stakeholders  was  that  although  a  legal 
framework is available to sanction misleading practices, traders walk  “the edge” of  what 
is allowed and consumers are sometimes too negligent. There are several poor practices, 
although  some  are  considered  a  ‘grey  area’.  Consumers  apply  a  lot  of  considerations 
when  ordering  a  free  trial,  but  fail  to  read  the  terms  and  conditions  or  do  not  inform 
themselves  about  for  instance  unsubscribing  rules  or  returning  rules.  A  legal  framework 
for personal data protection is available, but it seems that frequent infringements occur. 
Consumers do not easily find their way to effective redress. Many contact the trader when 
traceable,  but  they  less  often  contact  national  enforcement  agencies  or  ADR  systems  or 
payment providers. 

9.4.  Additional information 

An  accreditation  letter  was  sent  to  the  stakeholders  in  order  to  increase  the  response 
rate.  Overleaf,  a  print  screen  of  the  accreditation  letter  and  the  questionnaire  itself  is 
presented.  The  table  that  follows  lists  all  stakeholders  and  types  of  organisations  that 
participated in the survey. 

Finally, the stakeholder survey questionnaire is included. 

95 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Table 10:  Stakeholders that participated in the stakeholder survey 

Stakeholders 

Public authority at national level 

Number of 
organisations 

17 

Bundesministerium  der  Justiz  und  für  Verbraucherschutz 
(BMJV) 

Arbeiterkammer Wien / Abt Konsumentenpolitik  

Consumer Agency in Iceland 

Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority 

Czech Trade Inspection Authority 

Danish Consumer Ombudsman 

Federal  Ministry  of  Labour,  Social  Affairs  and  Consumer 
Protection 

Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority 

Hungarian Authority for Consumer Protection 

Italian Competition Authority - AGCM 

Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman 

State Consumer Rights Protection Authority (Lithuania) 

Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Market 

Federal  Ministry  of  Justice  and  consumer  Protection 
(Germany) 

Commisssion for Consumer Protection 

The Swedish Consumer Agency 

Directorate general Economic Inspection (Belgium) 

ECC or alternative dispute resolution organisation 

25 

ECC Austria 

ECC Belgium 

ECC Bulgaria 

ECC Croatia 

ECC Cyprus 

ECC Czech Republic 

ECC Estonia 

ECC France 

ECC Finland 

ECC Greece 

ECC Hungary 

ECC Ireland 

ECC Italy 

ECC Lithuania (2 representatives) 

ECC Luxembourg 

ECC Norway 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

ECC Poland 

ECC Slovakia (3 representatives) 

ECC Sweden / Konsument Europa 

ECC The Netherlands 

ECC UK 

Internet  Ombudsmann  /  Austrian  Institut  for  Applied 
Telecommunications 

Consumer organisation at national level 

Test-Aankoop 

The Danish Consumer Council 

Verein für Konsumenteninformation 

Business organisations 

IAB Europe 

Internet Advertising Bureau UK 

UK Online Dating Association 

Other 

Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) 

Confederation of Family Organisations in the EU (COFACE) 

Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg) 

European Advertising Standards Alliance (EASA) 

Total 

3 

3 

4 

52 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Questionnaire 
Stakeholder survey on Misleading free trials and subscription traps 

Base: All  
A01 
Please fill in your name 
Base: All  
A02 
Please fill in your function/title 
Base: All  
A03 
Please fill in the name of the organisation/company you represent 
Base: All  
A04 
Which of these best describe your organisation?  
Instruction: You can choose a single answer 
1. Public authority at EU level 
2. Public authority at national level 
3. Consumer organisation at EU level 
4. Consumer organisation at national level 
5. European Consumer Centre or alternative dispute resolution organisation 
6. Business association, sector organisations 
7. Advertising self-regulatory body 
8. Payment company 
9. Other, please specify: 
B 
Base: All  
B01 
Have  you  or  your  organisation  been  made  aware  of  or  been  confronted  with  problems 
related to misleading online free trials in the past year? 
1. Yes 
2. No  
Base: B01=1 
B02 
Can  you  estimate  the  importance  or  the  volume  of  these  problems,  for  example  if  your 
organisation collects complaints? Are problems becoming more or less frequent? 
Base: B01=1 
B03 
Based on the cases that your organisation has seen, what are the main types of problems 
that consumers face with misleading online free trials?  
Instruction: You can check up to 5 answers.  
1.  Delivery costs or final price for the trail or the test product being higher than 

Mapping of malpractices 

displayed on website 

2.  The trader sending goods that the client did not order  
3.  Consumers receiving products of no use / no value  
4.  The test product or service being of lower quality than advertised or not working at all 
5.  The customer not being able to find contact information or the customer service being 

poor 

6.  Non-delivery of the free products or services ordered 
7.  The customer receiving extra charges on their payment card without their consent 
8.  The customer being requested to pay with aggressive debt collection methods 
9.  Customers not being aware of starting a subscription 
10. Consumers not being able to return a product and get reimbursed 
11. Consumers having difficulties to unsubscribe  
12. Payment card details being stolen  

99 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

13. Sellers and websites being spread over different countries, with customers being 

automatically redirected to a website in another country or of other intermediaries 

14. The terms and conditions not being clear or respected by the seller/provider 
15. Personal data being misused 
16. Other problems  
Base: B01=1 
B04 
Please  can  you  give  more  details  about  the  most  common  types  of  problems,  using 
examples where possible?  
Base: B01=1 
B05 
In what market (i.e. for what products or services) does the problem mainly occur?  
Statements in row: 
1.  Dating services 
2.  Cosmetics and healthcare products 
3.  Food and health supplements  
4.  Cloud based storage services (for large document sharing, pictures backup etc) 
5.  Digital services used on mobile devices and via apps (such as games) 
6.  Music and Film 
7.  Astrology 
8.  Cooking recipes 
9.  Sales to clear stocks/inventories (various products)  
10. Other, please specify:  
Answers in column:  
1.  Very few problems 
2.  Few 
3.  Average amount of problems 
4.  More than average 
5.  Many problems 
6.  Don’t know 
Base: B01=1 
B06  
What detriment is there to consumers? Please provide examples to illustrate your answer, 
if possible. Types of detriment could include the following: 
1.  Loss of time 
2.  Financial loss 
3.  Emotional detriment 
4.  Other type of detriment, please specify:  
Base: B01=1 
B07 
Are there any consumer types that are more vulnerable than others to misleading online 
free trials and subscription traps? What type of consumers is most likely to be trapped? 
Base: All  
B08 
The previous questions focused on misleading free trials and subscription traps that occur 
online.  Are  you  aware  of  the  same  type  of  malpractices  via  other  channels  (e.g. 
telemarketing, offers in magazines)? Are these also frequent? 
C 
The  following  questions  collect  information  on  the  actions  that  your  organisation 
undertakes in this context.  
Base: B01=1 
C01 
What  action  does  your  organisation  take  to  combat  misleading  free  trials  and/or  assist 
consumers? 

Actions 

100 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

1.Responding to consumer’s complaints  
2.Investigations of traders 
3.Legal action (administrative decision, court) 
4.Removal or take-down of website or social media content 
5.Providing redress to consumers 
6.Issuing public warnings or alerts 
7.Awareness-raising actions  
8.Other, please specify:  
Base: B01=1 
C02 
What  remedies  does  an  individual  consumer  have  or  what  organisations  can  individual 
consumers  contact  when  facing  a  subscription  trap  problem?  Please  list  possible 
organisations.  
Base: B01=1 
C03 
What  cases/providers  have  you  been  investigating?  Have  you  taken  legal  action 
(administrative decisions or cases to court)? What has been the result?  
Base: B01=1 
C04 
How  difficult  is  it  to  identify  the  responsible  traders  and  intermediaries  behind  the 
malpractice? 
1. Very difficult 
2. Quite difficult 
3. Neither difficult nor easy 
4. Quite easy 
5. Very easy 
6. Don’t know 
Base: B01=1 
C05 
What actions have you undertaken to inform the public about the existence of misleading 
free trials and subscription traps? Via which channels?  
Base: B01=1 
C06 
What  action  do  you  consider  particularly  effective  to  combat  these  malpractices?  What 
best-practice examples can you give?  
Base: B01=1 
C07 
Which  other  stakeholders/organisations  were  involved  when  undertaking  these  actions? 
With what type of organisations do you co-operate for your actions?  
Base: B01=1 
C08 
What  legislation  in  the  EU  /  in  your  member  state  do  you  use  to  tackle  this  problem  or 
support your actions? What do you consider to be the most effective legal bases available 
to  you,  and  if  applicable,  where  do  you  see  room  for  improvement  in  the  legislative 
framework? 
Base: B01=1 
C09 
What  are  the  main  barriers  for  tackling  these  malpractices  today?  What  is  necessary  to 
address these problems more effectively?  
D 
Base: All 
D01 

Information 

101 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

to 

them 

these  documents, 

if  available  online,  or  alternatively  email 

Do you have access to any reports, research or statistics on this topic? Please include the 
url 
to 
luke.lloyd@gfk.com  
1. Yes 
2. No 
Base: All 
D02 
What  other  stakeholders  could  be  relevant  organisations  to  talk  to  in  the  light  of  this 
study?  Please  list  names  of  organisations/associations  and  if  possible  name  a  contact 
person 
Base: All 
D03 
Finally,  are  there  any  other  topics  regarding  misleading  online  free  trials  and 
subscriptions that you would like to raise? 
1. Yes, please specify: 
2. No 
Base: B01=1 
D04 
Would you be interested to participate in a workshop dealing with this topic? If so, please 
add your e-mail address below for further contacts.  
1. Yes  
2. No 
END OF QUESTIONNAIRE 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

10.  Annex consumer survey 

10.1.  Introduction 

The consumer survey covers the EU28, plus Iceland and Norway. The target respondents 
are  members  of  the  online  population.  Based  on  analyses  of  previous  studies40  and  the 
DG  SANCO  ‘E-commerce’  study  conducted  in  2011,  the  ‘online  population’  is  defined  as 
people  who  have  made  use  of  the  internet  at  least  once  within  the  past  12  months.  All 
members of GfK’s online panels aged 18+ were thus eligible to take part in the survey. 

In total, 24,166 respondents were interviewed. In terms of confidence intervals, one can 
say  with  95%  confidence  that  the  margin  of  error  attributable  to  sampling  and  other 
random effects on this total sample is +/-0.6%. 19 countries consisted of approximately 
1000  interviews  each  (target  population  over  4  million,  margin  of  error  +/-3%),  7 
countries  consisted  of  approximately  500  interviews  each  (target  population  over  1 
million,  margin  of  error  +/-4%),  and  4  countries  consisted  of  approximately  250 
interviews each (target population less than 1 million, margin of error +/-6%). 

Quota  on  age  and  gender  were  set  and  based  on  Eurostat  data.  The  total  national 
population  per  age  and  gender  group  per  country41  was  multiplied  by  the  proportion  of 
people  who  had  used  the  internet  in  the  past  12  months  per  age  and  gender  group 42. 
Overall, the sample at EU level is split equally between males and females and consists of 
two-fifths of consumer survey respondents being aged 18-34, two-fifths aged 35-54 and 
one-fifth aged 55+. Furthermore, region and urbanisation were taken into account, as the 
online  panels  had  a  sufficient  geographic  spread  in  all  countries  to  ensure  they  were 
representative. The survey results are thus an accurate reflection of the online consumer 
population  in  Europe43.  More  information  can  be  found  in  the  additional  information 
section of this annex.  

40  Especially  those  cited  on  the  Eurostat  databases  related  to  Information  Society.  Also  used  in  European 

Commission’s Digital Agenda Scoreboard as key indicator: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/ 

41 Data from  

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=demo_pjangroup&lang=en  

42

 Data from http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=isoc_ci_ifp_iu&lang=en  

43 In the following sections, the overall EU28 results are presented. When considering country differences, also 

Iceland and Norway are included. 

103 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

10.2.  Results 

In this section, the results from the consumer survey are presented. First, questions  are 
posed to investigate the online behaviour of consumers in general. What are the reasons 
to  buy  online  and  what  are  the  concerns  when  purchasing  online?  Furthermore,  the 
consumer  journey  is  research  as  the  research  before  purchase  is  addressed:  which 
channel do consumers use to buy online? Do they pay attention to terms and conditions? 
Do  they  read  them,  and  why  not?  Next,  the  knowledge  regarding  consumers’  rights  is 
analysed. Do they know their rights as a consumer when ordering products and services 
online? Finally, the question is posed if consumers already ordered a free trial and what 
type  of  product  they  ordered.  Next,  this  subgroup  of  consumers  forms  the  scope  of  the 
analysis. Consumers are asked if they already ordered a free trial and how frequent they 
order  free  trial  or  subscribe  to  free  subscriptions.  Then,  their  consumer  journey  is 
researched:  how  did  they  search  for  a  free  trial?  Where  did  consumers  find  a  free  trial: 
via  which  channel  and  did  they  know  the  origin  of  the  trader?  What  are  the  reasons  to 
search for a free trial? Did they experience any problems? Subsequently, the subgroup of 
consumers  that  did  experience  problems  when  ordering  free  trials  is  researched.  What 
was  the  product  they  had  ordered,  when  experiencing  problems?  What  was  the  type  of 
problem? And did they undertake actions when they encountered the problem. 

10.2.1.

  Online purchase behaviour 

First  of  all,  the  online  behaviour  of  all  respondents  is  considered.  The  following  specific 
products and services were researched in particular:  

cosmetics and healthcare products,  
food and health supplements,  

 
 
  dating services, and  
 

cloud based backup services.  

These categories were first of all assessed in terms of level of interest, actively searching 
online, and actively purchasing / subscribing online (see summarising figure). With regard 
to EU28 online population, the following results are reported: 

 

In terms of level of interest, the proportion of EU28 respondents stating that they 
were  interested  /  very  interested  was  highest  for  cosmetics  and  healthcare 
products  (52%),  followed  by  food  and  health  supplements  (43%),  cloud  based 
backup services (35%) and finally dating services (18%). 

  When  assessing  the  level  of  interest  by  asking  EU28  respondents  whether  they 
had  actively  searched  for  this  category  online  in  the  past  year,  three  quarters 
(75%)  of  the  EU28  respondents  looked  for  information  on  cosmetics  and 
healthcare products online, whilst just 34% did so for dating services. 

  Finally,  a  similar  pattern  is  followed  in  terms  of  the  proportion  of  EU28 
respondents  who  had  actively  purchased  /  subscribed  online  for  each  of  the  four 
categories  in  the  past  year.  Over  half  had  done  so  for  cosmetics  and  healthcare 
products (56%), but only 24% had actively subscribed for online dating services. 

104 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 11:  Interested  in  products,  looking  for  information  on  products,  purchasing 

products online at least once the last year (EU28 results) 

Note: Q04 How interested are you in following products/services? Percentage very interested and interested. / 
Q05  Over  the  last  12  months,  how  many  times  on  average  have  you  online  looked  for  information  on  …  ? 
Percentage at least once the last year or more frequent. / Q06 Over the last 12 months, how many times did 
you  purchase  or  subscribe  online  for  …  ?  Percentage  at  least  once  the  last  year  or  more  frequent.  EU28  N  = 
23,393 

In  the  following  figure,  a  map  of  Europe  is  included,  in  which  the  country  results 
regarding online purchase are visually presented. 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 12:  Purchasing products online at least once the last year  

Note: Q06 Over the last 12 months, how many times did you purchase or subscribe online for … ? Percentage at 
least once the last year or more frequent. EU28 N = 23,393 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Country differences are considerable. A few notable variations are: 

 

 

In  Poland,  70%  of  the  respondents  purchased  cosmetics  and  healthcare  products 
in the last year, while only 16% of the respondents did in Iceland 
In  the  Czech  Republic,  63%  of  the  respondents  purchased  food  and  health 
supplements in the last year, while only 14% of the respondents in Iceland did this 
  Purchasing  cloud  based  backup  services  in  the  last  year  was  highest  in  Spain 
(49%)  and  the  Czech  Republic  (48%),  but  lowest  in  Iceland  and  Cyprus  (both 
18%) 
In  the  Czech  Republic  (36%)  and  Slovakia  (34%),  the  highest  proportion  of 
respondents subscribed online for dating services in the last year. At the other end 
of the scale are Iceland (4%) and Malta (7%). 

 

Moreover, one can further look if these categories are also often ordered as a free trial or 
sample. The categories of products that are considered in particular are not all as likely to 
be ordered online as a free trial.  

  Cosmetics  and  healthcare  products:  45%  of  all  EU28  respondents  had  once 

ordered a free trial of cosmetics and healthcare products in the last year 

  Food  and  health  supplements:  36%  of  all  EU28  respondents  had  once  ordered  a 

free trial of food and health supplements in the last year 

  Cloud  based  backup  services:  32%  of  all  EU28  respondents  had  once  ordered  a 

free trial of cloud based backup services in the last year 

  Dating  services:  22%  of  all  EU28  respondents  had  once  ordered  a  free  trial  of 

dating services in the last year 

This is reported in the following figure.  

107 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 13:  Ordering free trials in the last year per product category (EU28 results) 

Note:  Q18  Over  the  last  12  months,  how  many  times  on  average  have  you  ordered  online  a  free  or  cheap 
sample of goods or subscribed for a free trial period of an online service? Percentage at least once in the last 12 
months or more frequent. EU28 N = 23,393 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

10.2.2.

  Reasons and concerns when purchasing online 

Consumers buy online for a variety of reasons. Convenience44 and price45 come first in the 
ranking. About a third of respondents also cite choice, information and consumer reviews 
as  drivers  of  online  shopping.  A  minority  of  people  enjoys  online  shopping  because  of 
returns  and  cancellation  policy  or  admit  disliking  physical  shops  altogether.  Country 
differences in the most cited reasons are considerable: 

  Ordering at any time of the day and week is a very important reason in countries 
such as Estonia (68%) and Luxemburg (66%) and less important in countries such 
as Spain (43%) and Italy (45%) 

  Finding cheaper products or services online is a very important reason in countries 

such as Greece (70%) and not that important in Romania (35%) 

  Saving time is a very important reason in countries such as  Lithuania (56%) and 
Estonia (55%) and not that important in countries such as Cyprus (32%) and the 
Netherlands (34%) 

Table 11:  Main five reasons to buy goods or subscribe for services online (EU 28 results) 
Reason  

% top 5 reasons 

I can order at any time of the day/week 

I find cheaper products/services online 

I save time by buying online 

It’s easier to compare prices online 

There’s more choice online 

I can find more information online 

I can find product/service reviews by other consumers  

Products are delivered to a convenient place  

It’s easier to compare product/service information online 

I can find certain products/services only online 

I don’t like going to shops 

I can return products or cancel subscriptions easily 

I find better quality products/services online 

52% 

46% 

44% 

42% 

39% 

28% 

28% 

28% 

27% 

27% 

12% 

10% 

8% 

Other 
Source:  Q07  What  are  the  main  reasons  why  you  buy  goods  or  subscribe  for  services  online?  Select  up  to  5 
responses that apply. EU28 N = 23,393 

2% 

Sociodemographic differences are moderate with regard to the most indicated reasons: 

  Woman  indicate  these  reasons  more  often  than  men:  52%  of  the  females 
compared  to  44%  of  the  males  indicates  at  any  time  as  a  reason  and  44% 
compared to 40% indicates price as a reason 

  Those living in a metropolitan area less often indicate time (45%) and price (40%) 

as reasons to buy online 

44 Shopping at any time, time saving 
45 Lowest price online, easy comparison 

109 

 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Consumers  were  asked  about  a  dozen  potential  concerns  with  online  shopping.  Over  a 
third of consumers are afraid that their personal data could be misused or their payment 
details stolen. About a third fear a difficult replacement or repair process if the purchased 
product is faulty or altogether wrong or counterfeit or even dangerous. Less than a fifth of 
the  online  active  EU  population  worry  about  long  delivery  time  (or  even  no  delivery  at 
all),  hidden  costs,  weak  legal  protection  and  poor  consumer  service.  They  also  find  that 
payment  methods  can  be  restrictive.  They  do  not  know  their  rights  nor  trust  the  terms 
and conditions displayed and fear that it might be difficult to unsubscribe once  enrolled. 
Finally,  less  than  10%  of  respondents  might  restrain  their  online  shopping  because  of 
inconvenience  of  delivery  time  or  place  or  due  to  lack  of  trust  or  understanding  of  the 
online information and terms and conditions. Country differences were identified: 

  The  concern  that  personal  data  can  be  misused  is  most  prominent  in  countries 
such as Croatia (51%) and Luxemburg (54%) and the least in Hungary (25%) 
  The  concern  that  payment  card  details  may  be  stolen  is  most  prominent  in 
Luxemburg  (59%)  and  least  so  in  countries  such  as  the  Netherlands  (25%)  and 
Lithuania (25%) 

With  regard  to  the  two  most  cited  concerns,  the  following  noticeable  sociodemographic 
differences with regard to age appeared: 

  The concern that personal data can be misused is most prominent amongst older 
respondents  (41%  compared  to  30%  youngsters  and  36%  middle  aged 
respondents) 

  The concern that payment card details may be stolen is most prominent amongst 
older  respondents  (35%  compared  to  27%  youngsters  and  31%  middle  aged 
respondents) 

Concerns further differ for those respondents who already experienced problems ordering 
a  free  trial  and  those  who  have  not.  Overall,  10%  of  those  respondents  have  not  yet 
experienced  problems  when  ordering  free  trials  state  they  do  not  have  any  concerns 
about  buying  products  or  subscribing  for  services  online,  compared  to  only  4%  of  those 
respondents who have already experienced problems when ordering free trials. 

Concerns  that  are  more  often  mentioned  by  respondents  who  already  experienced 
problems ordering free trials are: 

  The  concern  that  unsubscribing  for  a  service  is  not  easy  is  more  prominent 
amongst  respondents  who  experienced  problems  than  amongst  respondents  who 
did not experienced problems (22% compared to 15%) 

  The concern that terms and conditions are not trusted is more prominent amongst 
respondents  who  experienced  problems  than  amongst  respondents  who  did  not 
experienced problems (14% compared to 9%) 

  The  concern  that  terms  and  conditions  are  not  understood  is  more  prominent 
amongst  respondents  who  experienced  problems  than  amongst  respondents  who 
did not experienced problems (10% compared to 5%)  

110 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Table 12:  Concerns  about  buying  products  or  subscribing  for  services  online  (EU28 

results) 

27% 
25% 
23% 
19% 
17% 
16% 
16% 

% top 5 concerns 
40% 
35% 
28% 
28% 

Concern 
Personal data may be misused  
The payment card details may be stolen  
Replacement or repair of a faulty product is not easy  
Returning a product I didn't like and getting reimbursed is not 
easy  
Wrong or damaged products will be delivered  
Goods sold online might be unsafe/counterfeit  
The quality of the goods/services is not as good as defined  
Long delivery times  
Unsubscribing for a service is not easy 
Products/services will not be delivered at all  
Delivery costs or final price are higher than displayed on 
website  
My preferred payment method might not be accepted by online 
sellers  
Customer service is poor  
There is a lower level of consumer protection when buying or 
subscribing online  
I don't trust the terms and conditions I have to agree with 
online  
Delivery arrangements of online sellers might not be 
convenient for me  
I do not know what my consumer rights are when buying or 
subscribing online  
I don't trust the information provided to me online  
I don't understand the terms and conditions  
Other concerns  
Source: Q08 What are your greatest concerns about buying products or subscribing for  services online? Select 
up to 5 responses that apply. N = 23,393 

9% 
6% 
3% 

15% 
11% 

15% 

11% 

10% 

9% 

10.2.3.

  Active research before purchase 

Unsurprisingly, consumers who purchase  online also mainly use the Internet to  research 
products prior to purchase. Half of them use a search engine, price comparator website or 
the  product  website  (many  do  all  three).  Around  40%  look  for  online  reviews  and  ask 
their  friends’  opinion.  They  also  visit  “online  market  places”  such  as  amazon.com  or 
ebay.com. Less than a third visits the physical store, the social media page of the product 
or  searches  for  traditional  media  input  (print  press,  radio,  etc).  Country  differences  are 
apparent: 

  Using a general search engine is more common in Sweden (68%) and Luxemburg 

(70%), but far less so in Cyprus (37%) 

  Using  a  price  comparison  website  is  more  common  in  the  Czech  Republic  (67%) 

and less so in Iceland (29%) or Malta (29%) 

  Visiting online market places is more common in Luxemburg (67%) and less so in 

the Czech Republic (17%) and Slovakia (18%) 

111 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Table 13:  Actions taken in order to research a possible online purchase (EU28 results) 
Actions taken in order  
to research a possible online purchase 

Proportion action is 
in top 5 most 
important actions 
within EU28 

Search using a general search engine  

Search using a price comparison website  

Visited online market places  

Visit manufacturer / brand websites  

Visit seller or service provider websites  

Read online reviews in portals or independent advice websites  

Discuss with family, friends, colleagues  

Browse the website of a store that I had visited in person  

Visit shops in person  

Visited social networking sites  

Read, listen to or view reports/ads in print/radio/TV  

Contact online or phone customer service  

Visit online service intermediaries  

54% 

53% 

51% 

48% 

44% 

42% 

37% 

33% 

26% 

20% 

20% 

17% 

17% 

Visit  iTunes,  Google  Play  or  equivalent  stores  and  portals  for 
games, films, music etc.  
Note:  Q11  Which  of  the  following  do  you  do  to  research  a  possible  online  purchase?  Rank  5  responses  that 
apply. N = 23,393 

10% 

10.2.4.

  Paying attention to terms and conditions 

A  fifth  of  the  respondents  within  the  EU28  always  reads  the  terms  and  conditions  of 
online sellers or buyers. Country differences emerged: 

 

 

In Bulgaria, 44% of the respondents always  read the terms and conditions, while 
in Malta, only 12% of the respondents always read the terms and conditions 
In Estonia only 3% of the respondents never reads the terms and conditions, while 
in Iceland 22% of the respondents never reads the terms and conditions 

Figure 14:  Extent  to  which  terms  and  conditions  of  online  sellers  or  buyers  are  read 

(EU28 results) 

Note: Q12 Do you read the terms and conditions of online sellers or buyers? N = 23,393 

112 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Of  those  who  read  the  terms  and  conditions,  a  third  consider  the  terms  and  conditions 
difficult to understand,  a fifth consider the terms and conditions easy to understand and 
the remaining proportion of almost half of the respondents finds understanding the terms 
and conditions neither difficult, nor easy. Country differences are considerable: 

  While  47%  of  the  Spanish  respondents  and  46%  of  the  Slovakian  respondents 
claim  that  it  is  difficult  to  understand  terms  and  conditions,  only  16%  of  the 
Bulgarian respondents claim that it is difficult 

Figure 15:  Extent  to  which  terms  and  conditions  of  online  sellers  or  buyers  are 

understandable (EU28 results) 

Note: Q13 How difficult is it for you to understand the terms and conditions of online sellers or providers? N = 
20,372 

The most important reason for not always reading the terms and conditions is because it 
is  considered  too  time-consuming.  In  every  country,  more  than  half  of  the  respondents 
indicated this reason. Country differences emerged: 

  While in Malta 84% and in Austria 83% of the respondents indicate always reading 
the  terms  and  conditions  is  too  time-consuming,  in  Slovenia  only  58%  of  the 
respondents  indicate  always  reading  the  terms  and  conditions  is  too  time-
consuming 

  Regarding  the  reason  that  it  is  too  difficult,  only  2%  of  the  respondents  indicate 
this  reason  in  Bulgaria,  compared  to  20%  of  the  respondents  in  Cyprus,  19%  of 
the respondents in Slovenia and the Czech Republic 

Figure 16:  Reasons  why  terms  and  conditions  of  online  sellers  or  providers  are  not 

always read (EU28 results) 

Note: Q14 Why don’t you (always) read the terms and conditions of online sellers or providers? N =9,816 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

A  higher  proportion  of  respondents  who  had  previously  encountered  a  problem  with  an 
online free trial reads the terms and conditions than of those who had not encountered a 
problem (28% compared to 21% always reads the terms and conditions, 37% compared 
to  32%  most  of  the  time  reads  the  terms  and  conditions).  Respondents  who  had 
previously encountered a problem with an online free trial further are more likely to find it 
difficult  to  read  these  terms  and  conditions  (46%)  than  those  respondents  who  did  not 
encounter  problems  (29%).  The  reasons  to  not  always  read  terms  and  conditions  are 
similar  for  both  groups  of  respondents,  though  respondents  that  had  previously 
encountered  a  problem  with  an  online  free  trial  more  often  indicate  that  reading  terms 
and conditions is too time consuming (76% compared to 72%). 

There  are  no  gender  differences  with  regard  to  reading  terms  and  conditions,  or  how 
difficult  it  is  to  understand  them.  Both  men  and  women  find  it  equally  difficult  to  read 
terms and conditions (32% of the male respondents and 30% of the female respondents 
find terms and conditions hard to understand). The reasons to not always read terms and 
conditions  are  similar  for  males  and  females,  though  women  more  often  than  men 
consider reading terms and conditions too time-consuming (77% compared to 72%) and 
men  more  often  than  women  say  they  don’t  care  about  reading  terms  and  conditions 
(12% compared to 9%).  

Age differences occur, as 16% of the younger respondents (less than 35 years old) never 
reads the terms and conditions, compared to only 9% of the respondents between 35 and 
55  years  old  and  6%  of  the  respondents  older  than  55  years.  Nonetheless,  younger 
respondents  are  somewhat  less  likely  to  report  that  it  was  difficult  to  understand  these 
terms and conditions: 29% of the 18-34 year olds, 31% of the 35-55 year olds, and 34% 
of the 55+ year olds. The reasons to not always read terms and conditions are similar for 
all age groups, except for the reason that it is too difficult, which is more often given by 
older  respondents  (13%  of  the  55+  respondents  compared  to  8%  of  the  18-34 
respondents and 9% of the 35-55 respondents). 

There  are  no  differences  between  education  groups  in  reading  terms  and  conditions, 
although  respondents  with  lower  levels  of  education  (only  finished  elementary  school  or 
less)  were  more  likely  to  find  it  difficult  to  understand  terms  and  conditions  than 
averagely  and  highly  educated  respondents  (39%  compared  to  33%  and  lower 
percentages).  The  reasons  to  not  always  read  terms  and  conditions  are  similar  for  all 
education groups.  

There are no differences between employment groups in reading terms and conditions or 
difficulty understanding them. The reasons to not always read terms and conditions differ 
somewhat  between  employment  groups.  Unemployed 
retired 
respondents  more  often  indicate  reading  terms  and  conditions  is  too  difficult,  and  less 
often indicate it is too time-consuming, compared to employed respondents and students. 

respondents  and 

There  are  no  differences  between  urbanisation  groups  in  reading  terms  and  conditions, 
but  respondents  that  live  in  a  metropolitan  zone  are  more  likely  to  find  it  difficult  to 
understand  terms  and  conditions  (35%  compared  to  28%  of  the  respondents  in  other 
urban centres and towns, 29% in rural zones). The reasons to not always read the terms 
and conditions are similar for all urbanisation levels. 

There is no clear relation between financial situation of the respondent and the extent to 
which  the  respondent  reads  terms  and  conditions.  The  more  difficult  the  financial 
situation, the more difficult respondents find it to read terms and conditions. The reasons 
to  not  always  read  the  terms  and  conditions  varies  with  the  financial  situation  of  the 
respondents:  respondents  with  a  difficult  financial  situation  more  often  indicate  it  is  too 

114 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

difficult  to  read  and  less  often  indicate  they  don’t  care  about  reading  the  terms  and 
conditions. 

10.2.5.

  Knowledge on pre-contractual relevant information rights and stopping a 

subscription 

About  3  in  5  respondents  say  that  they  know  how  to  stop  a  subscription  for  an  online 
service and look into the rules before subscribing for a service. About 1 in 5 respondents 
say that they know how to stop a subscription, but look into the rules after subscription. 
The remaining fifth of the respondents do not look into the rules to stop the subscription. 
Country differences are apparent: 

  Looking into the rules is not done by a third of the respondents in three countries: 

 

Luxemburg (34%), Iceland (35%) and Estonia (36%) 
In  five  countries,  this  proportion  is  less  than  15%:  Slovakia  (12%),  Sweden 
(13%), Finland (14%), Germany (14%) and the UK (14%)  

Figure 17:  Extent  to  which  consumers  look  into  the  rules  to  stop  a  subscription  for  an 

online service (EU28 results) 

Note: Q15 Do you know how to stop a subscription for an online service? N = 23,393 

With  regard  to  returning  a  product  purchased  online,  the  rules  are  most  often  looked  at 
before  the  purchase  is  made.  Only  a  tenth  of  the  respondents  do  not  look  into  these 
rules. Country differences are: 

  Three quarters of the respondents in Germany (77%) and Austria (75%) look into 
the rules before purchasing online, while only 2 in 5 respondents in Iceland (41%) 
look into the rules before purchasing online  
In Iceland, a considerable minority of 45% does not look into the rules - Iceland is 
a clear outlier in this respect 

 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 18:  Extent  to  which  consumers  know  how  to  return  a  product  purchased  online 

(EU28 results) 

Note: Q16 Do you know how to return a product you purchased online? N = 23,393 

Knowledge on how to stop a subscription to an online service is critical to avoid scams on 
the internet.  In that regard, interviewees’ answers to the questionnaire  seem to  confirm 
the  fact  that  the  best  practice  of  looking  at  terms  and  conditions  for  subscription  and 
return of products is not followed by a large majority of the population. Indeed, only 58% 
of  the  respondents  reported  looking  into  the  rules  about  how  to  stop  the  subscription 
before  actually  subscribing,  while  22%  reported  looking  into  the  rules  only  after 
subscription and 20% neither before nor after subscription. 

Furthermore,  the  consumer  survey  tested  the  knowledge  about  certain  consumer  right 
that  are  relevant  in  the  context  of  free  trials  and  subscription  traps.  73%  of  the 
respondents  correctly  responded  that  they  always  have  the  right  to  return  a  product 
within  14  days  of  the  purchase,  but  only  16%  responded  that  they  can  keep  products 
they  have  not  ordered  without  paying  the  price.  The  latter  situation  may  happen  when 
consumers  are  victims  of  inertia  selling,  the  practice  of  sending  products  that  have  not 
been  ordered  to  the  address  of  the  victims  and  expecting  a  payment.  Finally,  only  a 
surprisingly low 46% of the respondents declared that they would notify the bank as soon 
as  possible  if  they  noticed  a  payment  transaction  from  their  accounts  that  they  never 
agreed to. 

These percentages vary widely at country level: 

  Cyprus is a clear outlier, as only 35% of the respondents believe that they always 

have the right to return a product within 14 days of the purchase 

  Less  than  10%  of  the  respondents  in  Spain,  Slovakia,  Bulgaria  and  Greece  know 
that if a seller sends a product that they did not order, they have the right to keep 
it without payment of the price 

  More  than  2  in  3  respondents  in  Malta  (68%)  and  Latvia  (71%)  know  that  they 
must  notify  their  bank  when  a  payment  transaction  they  never  agreed  to  is 
noticed, in order to get their money back 

Respondents  who  had  previously  encountered  a  problem  with  an  online  free  trial  were 
more  likely  to  know  how  to  stop  a  subscription  online  than  those  who  had  not;  because 
they  had  read  the  rules  about  it.  17%  of  the  respondents  who  had  not  encountered  a 
problem  did  not  know  how  to  stop  a  subscription,  compared  to  10%  of  the  respondents 
who  had  encountered  a  problem.  This  difference  was  less  apparent  in  relation  to 
knowledge  about  returning  a  product:  while  10%  of  the  respondents  that  had  not 

116 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

encountered a problem did not know how to return a product they purchased online, 12% 
of the respondents that had encountered a problem did know. 

Respondents  who  had  previously  encountered  a  problem  with  an  online  free  trial  were 
less aware of the right of withdrawal: 62% compared to 75% of the respondents who had 
not  encountered  a  problem  knew  that  when  buying  a  product  online,  they  could  usually 
simply return the product within 14 days after the purchase to receive their money back. 
Respondents  who  had  previously  encountered  a  problem  with  an  online  free  trial  were 
more  aware  of  the  process  of  inertia  selling:  19%  compared  to  16%  of  the  respondents 
who  had  not  encountered  a  problem  knew  that  if  a  seller  sends  a  product  that  was  not 
ordered,  they  could  keep  it  without  payment  of  the  price.  Respondents  who  had 
previously  encountered  a  problem  with  an  online  free  trial  were  less  aware  what  the 
correct  authorised  payment  meant:  41%  compared  to  46%  of  the  respondents  who  had 
not  encountered  a  problem  knew  that  when  noticing  a  payment  transaction  from  their 
accounts they never agreed to, they had to notify their bank to receive their money back. 

Knowledge  is  less  likely  to  be  different  amongst  gender  groups.  The  only  difference 
noticeable  is  in  knowledge  on  the  right  to  withdrawal:  while  76%  of  the  female 
respondents  indicated  correctly  that  when  purchasing  online,  they  could  usually  simply 
return a product within 14 days after the purchase to receive their money back, only 71% 
of the male respondents knew this. 

Younger respondents are more aware of how to stop a subscription online (83%) or how 
to  return  a  product  purchased  online  (87%).  However,  age  is  related  positively  to 
knowing the correct answers to questions regarding the right of withdrawal, inertia selling 
and  correct  authorized  payment.  This  means  that  knowledge  of  these  facts  is  more 
common for older respondents than for younger respondents: 66% of the  -35 year olds, 
76%  of  the  35-55  year  olds  and  79%  of  the  55+  year  olds  knew  that  when  buying  a 
product  online,  they  could  usually  simply  return  the  product  within  14  days  after  the 
purchase to receive their money back. 41% of the -35 year olds, 45% of the 35-55 year 
olds and 55% of the 55+ year olds knew that when noticing a payment transaction from 
their accounts they never agreed to, they had to notify their bank to receive their money 
back. 

Respondents  with  lower  education  levels  are  less  likely  to  know  what  their  rights  are 
when  purchasing  a  product  online.  Respondents  with  only  an  elementary  degree  or  less 
are  less  aware  of  how  to  stop  a  subscription  online  (74%)  or  how  to  return  a  product 
purchased  online  (82%).  They  are  also  less  likely  to  know  the  correct  answers  to 
questions relating to the right of withdrawal and the correct authorised payment. 

Also  respondents  who  are  unemployed  or  retired  are  somewhat  less  likely  than 
respondents who are employed to know what their rights are when purchasing a product 
online. However, the differences are small. 

Urbanization  is  also  linked  to  knowledge;  respondents  living  in  more  rural  areas  are 
somewhat more likely to know what their rights are. However, differences are limited. 

There  is  no  clear  relationship  between  respondents’  financial  situation  and  knowledge  of 
online purchasing. 

117 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

10.2.6.

  Ordering a free trial online per type of product 

EU28 consumers were further asked if they had ordered a free trial in the last 12 months 
(see  also  Figure  13).  45%  of  the  respondents  had  ordered  cosmetics  and  healthcare 
products, 42% had ordered digital services used on mobile devices and 40% had ordered 
music or films. The three most popular categories vary by country: 

  Only  7%  of  the  respondents  in  Iceland  ordered  online  a  cheap  or  free  sample  of 
cosmetics  and  healthcare  products,  compared  to  half  of  the  respondents  in 
Bulgaria (51%), Spain (52%), Slovakia (53%), Italy (54%), and Poland (55%) 
  For digital services, around a quarter of the respondents in Finland (24%) and the 
Netherlands (26%) ordered online a cheap or free sample, compared to half of the 
respondents in Bulgaria (50%), Spain (51%) and Italy (52%) 

  For music and film, only a fifth of the respondents in Estonia (20%) ordered online 
a  cheap  or  free  sample,  compared  to  almost  half  of  the  respondents  in  Poland 
(47%), Bulgaria (47%), Italy (48%) and Spain (49%) 

Figure 19:  Ordered  online  a  free  or  cheap  sample  of  goods  or  subscribed  for  a  free  trial 

period of an online service in the last year (EU28 results) 

Note:  Q18  Over  the  last  12  months,  how  many  times  on  average  have  you  ordered  online  a  free  or  cheap 
sample of goods or subscribed for a free trial period of an online service? Answer: At least once in the last 12 
months N = 23,393 

118 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

10.2.7.

  Search for free trial 

Figure 20:  Places where consumers found the offer for a free / cheap trial or subscription 

(EU28 results) 

Note: Q22 Where did you find the offer for a free / cheap trial or subscription? N = 14,481 

The  majority  (55%)  of  free  trial  encountered  by  respondents  were  country-specific, 
meaning that they were sent from a seller or  service provider based in the respondents’ 
country  of  residence.  However,  20%  of  the  interviewees  stated  that  they  could  not  tell 
where the seller or services provider was based, 19% found that it was in an EU country 
different from their own and 6% from a country outside the EU. 

Country differences are the following: 

  Only 12% of the respondents in Malta and 14% of the respondents in Luxemburg 
ordered  from  their  own  country  of  residence,  while  this  percentage  increased  to 
63% in Germany, Slovakia and Slovenia. 

  Between  16%  of  the  respondents  in  countries  such  as  Slovakia,  Slovenia, 
Germany  and  the  UK  did  not  know  where  they  got  their  free  trial  from,  this  was 
true for almost a third of the respondents in Lithuania and Norway (both 32%) 

Sociodemographic differences are: 

  Respondents  with  a  very  low  education  level  of  elementary  school  or  even  less 
(38%) more often found the free trial via a pop-up advertisement when using the 
internet  than  respondents  with  a  higher  education  (compared  to  31%  of  the 
respondents  with  some  high  (secondary)  school,  28%  of  the  respondents  that 
graduated  from  high  (secondary)  school,  27%  of  the  respondents  that  graduated 
from college university or other third-level institute) 

  Respondents  with  a  very  difficult  financial  situation  (33%)  more  often  found  the 
free  trial  via  a  pop-up  advertisement  when  using  the  internet  (compared  to  28% 
of the respondents with a fairly difficult financial situation, 27% of the respondents 
with a fairly easy financial situation, and 29% of the respondents with a very easy 
financial situation) 

  Younger respondents (18-34 year olds) more often found the free trial using their 
social media account (17%) than older respondents (compared to 11% of the 35-
54 year olds, and 7% of the 55+ year olds) 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

With  regard  to  the  difference  between  respondents  who  had  already  encountered 
problems ordering free trials and those who did not, the following differences appeared: 

  31%  of  those  respondents  who  already  experienced  problems,  compared  to  27% 
of those respondents who did not experienced problems, stated  that the free trial 
had popped up as an advertisement 

  22%  of  those  respondents  who  already  experienced  problems,  compared  to  only 
13% of those respondents who did not experienced problems, stated they got an 
offer when participating in a contest or competition 

  Only  16%  of  those  respondents  who  already  experienced  problems,  compared  to 
20% of those respondents who did not experienced problems, stated they ordered 
a free trial when looking for a product or service 

  Only  8%  of  those  respondents  who  already  experienced  problems,  compared  to 
18% of those respondents who did not experienced problems, stated they did not 
know where they had found the offer for a free trial or subscription. 

10.2.8.

  Country of seller / trader of free trial 

Figure 21:  Country where seller was based (EU28 results) 

Note: Q24 Where did you order this free product or subscribe for this free online service? N = 15,332 

Respondents  gave  four  predominant  reasons  for  trying  out  free  products  online:  46% 
needed  the  product  or  service,  35%  was  lured  by  a  tempting  good  offer,  11%  by  a 
limited-time offer and 8% had other reasons for ordering a free trial. 

Country differences are considerable: 

 

In  Iceland, only 16%  ordered a free trial because it was a good offer, more than 
half of the respondents in Hungary (53%) and Bulgaria (56%) gave this reason 
  Only 25% of the respondents in Hungary, 28% of the respondents in Bulgaria said 

that the product was what was wanted and 60% in Luxemburg 

Sociodemographic differences are also apparent: 

  Females  (57%  compared  to  52%  males),  older  respondents  (61%  compared  to 
50% -35 year olds, 56% 35-54 year olds), lower educated respondents (59%) and 
respondents  without  financial  difficulties  (59%  and  57%  of  the  respondents  that 
reported  that  it  was  very/fairly  easy  to  make  ends  meet,  compared  to  52%  and 
53% of the respondents that reported that it was fairly/very difficult to make ends 
meet)  were  more  likely  to  say  that  they  found  the  free  trial  in  their  country  of 
residence.  

120 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

There  are  differences  between  the  group  of  respondents  who  already  experienced 
problems and those did not: 

  44%  of  those  respondents  who  already  experienced  problems,  compared  to  57% 
of those respondents who did not experienced problems, stated that they ordered 
free trials from a seller or service provider based in their country of residence 

  29%  of  those  respondents  who  already  experienced  problems,  compared  to  16% 
of those respondents who did not experienced problems, stated that they ordered 
free trials from a seller or service provider based in another EU country 

  10% of those respondents who already experienced problems, compared to 5% of 
those  respondents  who  did  not  experienced  problems,  stated  that  they  ordered 
free trials from a seller or service provider based outside the EU 

  16%  of  those  respondents  who  already  experienced  problems,  compared  to  22% 
of those respondents who did not experienced  problems,  stated that they did not 
know the origin of the seller or service provider of the free trial they ordered 

10.2.9.

  Reasons to order a free trial 

Figure 22:  Reason to order a certain free product or service online (EU28 results) 

Note:  Q23  Why  did  you  order  this  free/cheap  product  or  subscribe  for  this  free/cheap  online  service?  N  = 
15,332 

The majority of online purchases were through URL websites (e.g. amazon.de) with 51% 
of the respondents  choosing this as their virtual place of choice, while 24% chose social 
media (e.g. Facebook), 17% app stores (e.g. Itunes) and 7% apps (e.g. booking.com). 

Country differences are present: 

  URL websites are very  popular in Austria (67%) and  Germany (64%), but less in 

 

Poland (29%) and Slovakia (29%) 
In  Poland,  43%  of  the  respondents  purchased  via  social  media,  which 
consequently forms the most popular source. Similarly, 42% of the respondents in 
Slovakia  purchased  via  social  media.  Also  in  Romania  (38%),  Portugal  (43%), 
Croatia (40%), Greece (40%) and Cyprus (42%), the most important source is not 
an URL website but social media. In all other countries, URL  websites  remain the 
most popular source 

Sociodemographic differences are quite limited. The only clear tendency is the following: 

  Older aged respondents less often indicate it was a good offer (26% compared to 
38%  -35  year  olds  and  35%  35-54  year  olds)  and  more  often  indicate  it  was  a 
product they could use or wanted (50% compared to 45% and 46%) 

121 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

With  regard  to  the  difference  between  respondents  who  had  already  encountered 
problems ordering free trials and those who did not, only one difference appeared: 

  39%  of  those  respondents  who  already  experienced  problems,  compared  to  34% 
of  those  respondents  who  did  not  experienced  problems,  stated  that  the  reason 
they ordered a free trial was because it was a good offer 

10.2.10.

Virtual place of choice ordering a free trial 

Figure 23:  Virtual place of choice for purchasing free products or services (EU28 results) 

Note: Q25 Which website/Appstore/app did you use to order or subscribe? N = 15,044 

With  regard  to  the  difference  between  respondents  who  had  already  encountered 
problems ordering free trials and those who did not, the following differences appeared: 

  46%  of  those  respondents  who  already  experienced  problems,  compared  to  53% 
of those respondents who did not experienced problems, stated that they  ordered 
a free trial via an URL, such as www.amazon.com 

  28%  of  those  respondents  who  already  experienced  problems,  compared  to  23% 
of those respondents who did not experienced problems, stated that they ordered 
a free trial via social media, such as Facebook or twitter. 

10.2.11.

Seeking consent of consumers 

Interestingly,  traders  do  not  always  seek  the  consent  of  their  customer  when  delivering 
extra products or services that have not been requested. This is reflected in the answers 
of  respondents  to  our  questionnaire:  a  meagre  34%  revealed  that  their  consent  was 
sought  on  all  occasions,  while  19%  said  only  occasionally,  23%  never  and  23%  did  not 
know. Country variations emerged: 

  Explicit consent is most often sought on all occasions in Italy (49%), least sought 

in Finland (21%) 

  Explicit consent is never sought from 40% of the respondents in Slovenia and only 

15% of the respondents in Spain 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 24:  Extent  to  which  traders  seek  the  consent  of  their  customer  when  delivering 

extra products or services that have not been requested (EU28 results) 

Note: Q30 When you ordered the free/cheap trial or subscription, did the trader seek your explicit consent as to 
the  fact  that,  by  ordering  or  subscribing,  you  were  accepting  to  have  more  products  delivered  or  get  extra 
services? N = 15,332 

10.2.12.

Incidence of problems  

Of the consumers surveyed within the EU28, 66% had ordered a free trial online. Of these 
consumers, 21% had experienced one or more problems. Overall, this means that of the 
consumers  surveyed  within  the  EU28,  14%  of  them  had  been  affected  by  a  problem 
caused by a free trial online. Luxembourgers and Icelanders reported the least problems 
(6% and 7% respectively); Romanians reported the highest incidence of problems (32%). 
In the following figure, country results are visualised. Nonetheless, it should be noted that 
the number of respondents is limited for the smaller countries. 

123 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 25:  Proportion of respondents experiencing one or more problems with online free 

trials and subscriptions (country results) 

Note: Q19 Did you experience one or more problems when ordering a free/cheap test product or subscribing for 
a free/cheap trial period of a service? N = 15,787 

At  the  country  level,  one  can  consider  the  proportion  of  respondents  experiencing 
problems  with  free  trials  based  on  the  respondents  that  ordered  a  free  trial  or  to  the 
general  internet  population.  This  is  reported  within  the  following  country  table.  One  can 
further  argue  that  within  countries,  the  number  of  observations  significantly  drops. 
Therefore,  analysis  more  in  depth  at  the  country  level  is  not  relevant  in  most  follow-up 
sections on problems with misleading free trials. 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Table 14:  Respondents experiencing problems ordering free trials (country results)  
Country 

Number of 
respondents 
experiencing 
problems  

Proportion of 
respondents 
experiencing 
problems, base all 
respondents 

Proportion of 
respondents 
experiencing 
problems, base 
respondents that 
ordered free trial 

Germany 

France 

Italy 

UK 

Spain 

Poland 

Romania 

The Netherlands 

Greece 

Czech Republic 

Belgium 

Portugal 

Hungary 

Sweden 

Austria 

Bulgaria 

Slovakia 

Denmark 

Finland 

Croatia 

Ireland 

Lithuania 

Latvia 

Slovenia 

Estonia 

Cyprus 

Luxemburg 

Malta 

Norway 

Iceland 

155 

122 

140 

126 

128 

211 

224 

100 

110 

169 

106 

128 

200 

148 

122 

208 

84 

112 

139 

79 

87 

49 

42 

40 

27 

37 

10 

33 

98 

8 

15.0% 

12.4% 

13.5% 

12.5% 

11.9% 

21.0% 

20.9% 

10.1% 

10.4% 

17.0% 

10.5% 

12.7% 

17.8% 

14.8% 

12.2% 

19.6% 

9.5% 

11.2% 

13.8% 

14.9% 

17.0% 

12.9% 

9.1% 

9.1% 

6.6% 

13.8% 

3.8% 

12.9% 

19.5% 

2.8% 

22.2% 

19.4% 

18.3% 

19.4% 

16.9% 

29.3% 

31.6% 

20.6% 

14.5% 

24.2% 

19.1% 

18.3% 

26.4% 

26.5% 

18.7% 

25.6% 

12.6% 

23.2% 

21.7% 

19.5% 

25.4% 

17.8% 

13.8% 

15.2% 

12.6% 

19.9% 

6.9% 

17.6% 

29.6% 

6.3% 

Note: Q19 Did you experience one or more problems when ordering a free/cheap test product or subscribing for 
a free/cheap trial period of a service? N = 15,787 

125 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

10.2.13.

Product that was ordered when experiencing problems with free trials 

Consumers  that  already  experienced  problems  ordering  free  trials  were  further  asked 
which  type  of  product  they  had  ordered  (indicating  all  different  kinds  of  products  they 
ever  encountered  problems  with,  and  the  kind  of  product  they  encountered  the  most 
recent problem with).  

Figure 26: 
subscriptions per type of product/service (EU28 results)  

Proportion of respondents experiencing one or more problems with online free trials and 

Note: Q21 What kind of product or service did you order when experiencing the problem? Q21a And what kind 
of product or service did you order when experiencing your most recent problem?  

The proportion of respondents experiencing one or more problems with online free trials 
is  more  prominent  when  the  free  trial  is  part  of  the  product  category  of  cosmetics  and 
healthcare  products.  Of  the  most  recent  problems,  a  quarter  of  the  problems  related  to 
this category. 

The other product categories that are considered in particular are the following: 

  15%  of  the  respondents  who  indicated  they  experienced  one  or  more  problems 
with  free  trials,  indicate  that  their  most  recent  problem(s)  related  to  food  and 
health supplements 

  10%  of  the  respondents  who  indicated  they  experienced  one  or  more  problems 
with free trials, indicate that their most recent problem(s) related dating services 
  10%  of  the  respondents  who  indicated  they  experienced  one  or  more  problems 
with  free  trials,  indicate  that  their  most  recent  problem(s)  related  to  music  and 
film (such as streaming services) 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

  9% of the respondents who indicated they experienced one or more problems with 
free  trials,  indicate  that  their  most  recent  problem(s)  related  to  cloud  based 
storage services 

10.2.14.

Type of problems  

Digging deeper into the problems encountered by the aforementioned respondents when 
subscribing  for  free  trials,  34%  was  not  able  to  or  had  difficulties  unsubscribing,  while 
22% could not return a sample product and 20% reported a long delivery time. 

Country  differences  are  the  following,  although  the  base  is  very  low  and  these  results 
should be interpreted with caution: 

  Problems  unsubscribing  were  indicated  by  3  in  5  respondents  in  Sweden  (57%), 

Lithuania (60%) and Finland (61%) 

  Problems unsubscribing were indicated by less than 1 in 5 respondents in Cyprus 

(18%) 

  Problems  returning  the  sample  were  indicated  by  1  in  3  respondents  in  Slovenia 

(33%), Romania (33%), Slovakia (34%) and Spain (36%) 

  Problems returning the sample were indicated by less than 1 in 10 respondents in 

Latvia (8%), Luxemburg (9%) and Lithuania (9%) 

There  are  some  relationships  between  sociodemographic  characteristics  of  the 
respondents and the likelihood of encountering problems when ordering a free/cheap test 
product or subscription to an online service: 

  Male  respondents  (24%)  were  more  likely  to  experience  problems  than  female 

respondents (18%) 

  Young  respondents  (25%)  were  more  likely  to  experience  problems  than  older 

respondents (19% 35-54 year, 16% 55+ year) 

  Retired respondents (15%) were least likely to encounter problems 
  The  more  urban  living  surroundings,  the  more  likely  respondents  were  to 
experience  problems  (25%  in  metropolitan  zone,  19%  in  urban  centre,  17%  in 
rural zone) 

  A difficult financial situation was related to encountering a problem. 26% of those 
for  whom  it  was  very  difficult  to  make  ends  meet  reported  having  encountered  a 
problem. 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Table 15:  Nature of problems encountered with free trials (EU28 results) 
Problems that occurred 

Proportion of 
those who 
ordered a free 
trial 

Proportion of 
those who 
experienced a 
problem 

I was not able to unsubscribe / I had difficulties to 
unsubscribe 

I wanted to return the sample product but couldn’t  

It took a long time before the sample product was 
delivered  

I was not aware that I had subscribed for a service  

The seller did not replace or repair a faulty sample 
product  

The product/service was never delivered/provided  

Customer service was poor  

I was threatened with debt collectors if I would not 
pay  

The cheap offer is available for free elsewhere online  

Sample product was of lower quality than advertised  

I was sent products that I did not order  

Delivery costs or final price was higher than displayed 

The wrong sample product was delivered 

I was not able to contact the seller/provider 

I was harassed by debt collectors 

I could not access the service  

Other problems 

My payment card details were stolen  

My means of payment was refused by the seller  

My personal data was misused 

I could not access the seller's website or only limited 
content was displayed to me 

I got extra charges on my credit card without my 
consent 

The terms and conditions were not respected by the 
seller/provider 

I could not get my data back when closing my 
account  

7% 

5% 

4% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

34% 

22% 

20% 

18% 

15% 

15% 

14% 

14% 

12% 

11% 

11% 

10% 

10% 

10% 

10% 

10% 

6% 

5% 

5% 

5% 

5% 

5% 

4% 

4% 

Unweighted N 
Note: Q20 Did you encounter one or more of the following problems ordering a free/cheap trial or subscribing 
for a free/cheap service? N = 3,253  

15,332 

3,136 

128 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

10.2.15.

Actions taken after problem with free trial 

When  a  problem  occurred  when  ordering  a  free  trial,  among  the  several  actions  that 
respondents  took  to  resolve  the  situation,  43%  of  the  respondents  complained  to  the 
seller or service provider and, a surprisingly high 19% did not take any action at all. 

Table 16:  Actions  undertaken  when  a  problem  occurred  ordering  a  free  trial  online 

(EU28 results) 

Action undertaken 

I complained about it to the seller or service provider 

I didn’t take any action  

I complained about it to the manufacturer 

I complained about it to the police  

I complained about it to the payment company 

I complained about it to an anti-fraud organisation  

I complained about it to a public authority  

I brought the matter to an out-of-court dispute resolution body (ADR)  

I brought it to the media (radio, tv, social media…) 

I took the business concerned to court 

Other  

Proportion 
EU28 

43% 

19% 

18% 

12% 

11% 

10% 

8% 

7% 

4% 

3% 

5% 

4% 
Don’t know  
Note: Q26 For your most recently experienced problem(s) with an online order of a free/cheap trial or 
subscription, what action did you take? N = 3,253 

When respondents were asked how easy actions were to take, 70% indicated that it was 
easy  to  bring  the  matter  to  an  out-of-court  dispute  resolution  body  and  67%  indicated 
that  it  was  easy  to  complain  to  the  police.  The  sample  of  respondents  is  very  low  and 
sub-group analysis is not possible.  

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Table 17:  Perceived  easiness  of  undertaking  an  action  in  case  a  problem  occurred  with 

free trial order (EU28 results) 

Action undertaken 

Easy to undertake action 

I brought the matter to an out-of-court dispute resolution 
body (ADR)  

I complained about it to the police  

I took the business concerned to court 

I complained about it to the manufacturer 

I complained about it to a public authority  

I complained about it to an anti-fraud organisation  

I complained about it to the seller or service provider 

I complained about it to the payment company 

I brought it to the media (radio, tv, social media…) 

70% 

67% 

65% 

64% 

60% 

57% 

53% 

53% 

52% 

Other  
Note:  Q27  Considering  the  actions  that  you  selected  at  the  previous  question,  how  easy  was  the  action  to 
complain? N = 1,406 

43% 

Satisfaction  with  these  actions  was  further  investigated.  Satisfaction  is  good  when 
complaints  are  made  to  the  police,  manufacturer,  public  authority.  Satisfaction  is  less 
good  when  bringing  the  complaint  to  the  media  or  complaining  to  payment  companies. 
The sample of respondents is very low and sub-group analysis is not possible. 

Table 18:  Satisfaction with actions undertaken (EU28 results) 

Action undertaken 

I complained about it to the police  

I complained about it to the manufacturer 

I complained about it to a public authority  

I brought the matter to an out-of-court dispute 
resolution body (ADR)  

I took the business concerned to court 

I complained about it to an anti-fraud organisation  

I complained about it to the seller or service provider 

I complained about it to the payment company 

I brought it to the media (radio, tv, social media…) 

Satisfaction with action 
undertaken 

63% 

61% 

61% 

61% 

60% 

59% 

55% 

53% 

51% 

Other  
Note: Q28 How satisfied were you with the outcome of your action to complain? N = 1,406  

40% 

While asked for the reasons for not taking any action, 32% of the respondents  who took 
no action say the sums involved were too small and 26% think that a satisfactory solution 
to the problem that they encountered was unlikely. The sample of respondents is very low 
and sub-group analysis is not possible. 

130 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Table 19:  Reasons respondents did not take any action in case a problem occurred with 

free trial order (EU28 results) 

Reason to not take action 

The sums involved were too small 

I was unlikely to get a satisfactory solution to the problem I 
encountered  

I did not know how or where to complain 

I thought it would take too long 

I was not sure of my rights as a consumer 

I thought complaining would have led to a confrontation, and I do 
not feel at ease in such situations  

I tried to complain about other problems in the past but was not 
successful 

Other  

Don’t know  
Note: Q29 If you didn’t take any action, what were the main reasons? N = 618 

Proportion 
within EU28 

30% 

27% 

16% 

13% 

11% 

8% 

7% 

8% 

18% 

10.3.  Conclusion 

Of  all  the  consumers  surveyed  within  the  EU28,  66%  had  ordered  a  free  trial  online.  Of 
these  consumers  who  had  ordered  a  free  trial  21%  experienced  one  or  more  problems. 
Overall, this means that 14% of the EU28 online population experienced issues relating to 
misleading  free  trials.  Of  this  group  of  consumers  who  experienced  problems,  the 
majority (81%) took some action.  

Most  of  the  time,  consumers  find  the  free  trial  in  their  country  of  residence  (55%)  or 
another EU country (19%). Consumers say that the trial was useful or wanted (46%) and 
that  the  trial  was  a  good  offer  (35%).  Scarcity  of  the  trial  (a  limited  offer)  was  a  less 
important  (11%)  driver  for  taking  up  the  offer.  Most  often  the  trial  was  found  via  a  url 
website (51%) while looking for a product or service, or through a pop-up advertisement. 

Problems were more frequently reported for cosmetics and healthcare products, but also 
digital  services  and  food  and  health  supplements.  Of  those  consumers  who  experienced 
problems, the problem often related to inability or difficulty unsubscribing from a service 
(34%)  or  returning  a  sample  product  (22%).  These  problems  seem  not  to  be  a  general 
concern when consumers are asked about their concerns when ordering online. While it is 
often  a  concern  that  data  can  be  stolen,  personal  data  was  misused  in  only  5%  of  the 
problematic  cases.  Still,  a  considerable  one  in  ten  consumers  reported  that  they  were 
harassed by debt collectors because of getting tricked into a misleading free trial. 

Complaints  are  often  directed  to  the  seller  or  service  provider  (43%).  Intermediary 
companies  such  as  payment  companies  were  contacted  by  11%  of  the  consumers  who 
took action when experiencing a problem. ADR or public authorities were contacted in 7-
8%  of  the  cases.  Complaining  to  the  ADR  system  is  considered  easy  (70%)  and 
consumers  tend  to  be  satisfied  with  these  actions.  When  consumers  do  not  take  action 
when experiencing a problem, this most often relates to the fact that the sums involved 
are considered too small and because consumers are of the opinion that they will not get 
a satisfactory solution. 

131 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

10.4.  Additional information 

The survey was conducted online using consumer panels in all 30 countries. The 19 larger 
EU Member States had a target of 1000 respondents each, 7 Member States had a target 
of 500 respondents, and the smallest 4 countries each had a target of 250 respondents. 
Panellists received an email inviting them to participate in the survey, including the link to 
the URL where they found the online questionnaire. Each email to a panellist had a unique 
survey  URL,  which  ensured  that  no  panellist  could  complete  the  survey  twice.  Panellists 
also had the opportunity to use their personal URL to revisit the questionnaire and thus to 
be  able  to  complete  it  in  more  than  one  sitting.  Following  the  original  email  invitation, 
panellists who had not clicked on the link received reminders. 

Following the finalisation of the survey questionnaire in English, the master questionnaire 
was programmed into an online questionnaire script and then translated into all national 
languages  for  the  30  survey  countries.  This  translation  process  consisted  of  a  first 
translation, followed by an independent review by another translator, followed by several 
checks  of  the  translated  script  by  researchers  before  the  questionnaire  and  its 
translations were finalised. 

Table 20:   Sample per country 

EU28 

Online population 18+ 

# interviews 

DE 

FR 

IT 

UK 

ES 

PL 

RO 

NL 

EL 

CZ 

BE 

PT 

HU 

SE 

AT 

BG 

SK 

DK 

FI 

HR 

IE 

68,127,887 

50,333,283 

50,112,682 

48,442,405 

37,797,025 

30,932,293 

17,492,677 

13,060,510 

9,345,183 

8,659,072 

8,625,746 

8,494,192 

8,025,761 

7,419,588 

6,833,544 

6,303,911 

4,380,746 

4,319,228 

4,262,971 

3,634,148 

3,347,007 

1,023 

1,004 

1,022 

1,033 

1,037 

1,003 

1,064 

999 

1,005 

1,005 

1,016 

1,005 

1,165 

1,005 

1,006 

1,017 

1,044 

1,000 

1,005 

564 

501 

132 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

LT 

LV 

SI 

EE 

CY 

LU 

MT 

2,692,484 

1,860,937 

1,698,909 

1,093,038 

633,209 

394,805 

345,286 

529 

519 

518 

526 

246 

280 

252 

NON-EU 

Online population aged 18+ 

NO 

IS 

TOTAL 

3940,474 

242,099 

Achieved number of 
interviews 

502 

271 

24,166 respondents 

Table 21:   Percentage of interviews per age and gender 

  Age group 

Gender 

18-34 

35-54 

55+ 

male 

female 

EU28 

40% 

AT 

BE 

BU 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

39% 

39% 

45% 

56% 

39% 

35% 

34% 

42% 

48% 

41% 

36% 

39% 

46% 

42% 

45% 

39% 

47% 

41% 

43% 

40% 

42% 

34% 

42% 

42% 

38% 

39% 

43% 

46% 

37% 

40% 

40% 

40% 

40% 

45% 

40% 

20% 

18% 

21% 

14% 

9%% 

19% 

23% 

28% 

19% 

10% 

13% 

28% 

22% 

14% 

18% 

15% 

16% 

13% 

50% 

51% 

51% 

49% 

50% 

50% 

51% 

50% 

47% 

52% 

51% 

50% 

50% 

54% 

48% 

49% 

53% 

45% 

50% 

49% 

49% 

51% 

50% 

50% 

49% 

50% 

53% 

48% 

49% 

50% 

50% 

46% 

52% 

51% 

47% 

55% 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

IS 

NO 

37% 

43% 

48% 

34% 

51% 

45% 

49% 

35% 

42% 

45% 

39% 

40% 

37% 

41% 

40% 

36% 

39% 

37% 

42% 

39% 

37% 

41% 

39% 

38% 

37% 

38% 

22% 

17% 

17% 

27% 

12% 

13% 

13% 

28% 

17% 

16% 

23% 

23% 

25% 

51% 

46% 

51% 

50% 

49% 

51% 

50% 

51% 

51% 

48% 

49% 

51% 

51% 

49% 

54% 

49% 

50% 

51% 

49% 

50% 

49% 

49% 

52% 

51% 

49% 

49% 

Since the survey target was the general EU population that uses the internet, the CAWI 
methodology  was  the  most  efficient  manner  in  which  to  carry  out  the  survey,  especially 
for  those  countries  where  the  socio-demographic  make-up  of  the  total  population  differs 
from that of the online population. For example, in Eastern European countries, the online 
population  is,  on  average,  younger  than  the  total  population,  due  to  lower  internet 
penetration amongst older people or those living in rural areas. 

Age  and  gender  were  used  as  the  two  weighting  criteria.  Other  potential  weighting 
variables,  such  as  region  or  level  of  education,  were  not  included  in  the  weighting 
process. The achieved interviews were fairly close to the sample target in most countries 
in  terms  of  gender.  Post-fieldwork,  data  was  weighted  by  age  and  gender  in  order  to 
correct  for  differences  between  target  and  achieved  figures.  The  second  stage  of 
weighting was to produce an overall weighting figure for the “total EU28” results, and so 
EU  Member  States  with  a  larger  online  population  were  given  a  larger  weight  at  overall 
level.  The  weighting  targets  were  based  on  country  population  aged  18+,  multiplied  by 
the incidence rate of those who had used the internet in the past year per country (based 
on  data  from  Eurostat46).  Therefore,  a  country  with  a  high  population  and  a  high 
incidence  rate  will  have  a  larger  share  of  the  EU28  total  than  a  smaller  country  or  a 
similarly sized country that has a lower internet incidence rate. 

The profile of the respondents is presented in the following table. 

46

 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database - Individuals internet use [isoc_ci_ifp_iu] 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Table 22 Profile of respondents 

Number  of  respondents 
(weighted results) 

Proportion  of 
(weighted results) 

respondents 

Gender 
Man 
Woman 
Age group 
18-34 
35-54 
55+ 

from  high 

Completed full-time studies 
Elementary school or less 
Some high school 
Graduation 
school 
Graduation  from  college, 
university  or  other  third-
level institute 
Post-graduate degree  
Still studying full-time 
Other  
Refusal 

Current work status 

Employed full time 
Employed part time 
Self-employed 
Unemployed,  looking  for 
a job 
Unemployed,  not  looking 
for a job 
Unable  to  work  due  to 
or 
long-term 
disability 
Retired 
Student 
Other 
Urbanisation 

illness 

Metropolitan zone 
Other 
centre 
Rural zone 

town 

/  urban 

Financial  situation  (making 
ends meet) 

Very difficult 
Fairly difficult 
Fairly easy 
Very easy 
Don't know 

12,234 
11,932 

8,479 
10,365 
5,321 

675 
3,938 

7,598 

6,856 

2,976 
928 
727 
468 

10,598 
2,698 
1,718 

2,103 

1,167 

824 

2,767 
1,639 
651 

8,508 

10,022 

5,636 

2,569 
9,502 
8,986 
2,178 
931 

50.6% 
49.4% 

35.1% 
42.9% 
22.0% 

2.8% 
16.3% 

31.4% 

28.4% 

12.3% 
3.8% 
3.0% 
1.9% 

43.9% 
11.2% 
7.1% 

8.7% 

4.8% 

3.4% 

11.4% 
6.8% 
2.7% 

35.2% 

41.5% 

23.3% 

10.6% 
39.3% 
37.2% 
9.0% 
3.9% 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE 
A  IDENTIFICATION – DEMOGRAPHICS PART 1 
Base: all respondents  
Z01 [S] 
Are you a:  
1.  Man 
2.  Woman 
Z02 [Q] 
How old are you? 
Scripter: range 18 - 99.  
B  Use of internet 
Base: all respondents  
Q01 [Q]  
Scripter: Insert number boxes. Hours [Q] range from 0 to 24, Minutes [Q] range from 0 
to 59. Minutes can be empty, hours can be empty. At least 1 needs to be filled in. If hours 
>24 or minutes > 59, error message “Amount you have entered is too large.” 
On average, how much time per day do you actively use the Internet for non-work 
related purposes? This can include browsing online, shopping, sending emails, using 
social media, online gaming etc. 
Please try to give an approximate value in terms of hours and minutes  
[Q] Hours and [Q] Minutes 
Q02 [Q]  
Scripter: Insert number boxes. Hours [Q] range from 0 to 24, Minutes [Q] range from 0 
to 59. Minutes can be empty, hours can be empty. If hours >24 or minutes > 59, error 
message “Amount you have entered is too large.” 
Can you specify this by category? How much time per day do you spend on internet 
Looking for information on tangible goods 
Looking for information on offline services 
(e.g. travel services, utilities, etc.) 
Looking for information on online services 
(e.g. web-based software, etc.) 
Reading news 
Downloading or streaming digital content 
Chatting with friends/family/etc 
Playing games online 
Using social media 
Participating in contests or competitions 
Other, specify: [O] [DP: not required] 
C  PURCHASE ONLINE 
Q03 [S per statement] 
Over the last 12 months, how many times on average have you online purchased or paid 
for … 
Scripter: Script this as a grid and randomize the statements 
Statements in row (randomize): 
1.  Tangible goods 
2.  Subscription for online service(s) 
3.  Subscription for offline service(s) 
4.  News and actuality service(s) 
5.  Downloading or streaming digital content 
6.  Chatting with friends/family/etc 
7.  Playing games online 
8.  Using social media 
9.  Participating in a contest or competition 
10. Other [DP: fixed]  

[Q]  minutes 
[Q]  minutes 
[Q]  minutes 
[Q]  minutes 
[Q]  minutes 
[Q]  minutes 
[Q]  minutes 
[Q]  minutes 

hours 
hours 
hours 
hours 
hours 
hours 
hours 
hours 

[Q] 
[Q] 
[Q] 
[Q] 
[Q] 
[Q] 
[Q] 
[Q] 

[Q]  minutes 

[Q]  minutes 

hours 

hours 

[Q] 

[Q] 

136 

 
 
  
  
  
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Answers in column:  
1.  At least once a day  
2.  At least once a week 
3.  At last once a month 
4.  At least once every three months 
5.  At least once in the last 12 months  
6.  Never  
Q04 [S per statement] 
How interested are you in following products/services? 
Scripter: Script this as a grid and randomize the statements 
Statements in row (randomize): 
1.  Cosmetics and healthcare products 
2.  Food and health supplements (nutrition, diet, muscle enhancer, …) 
3.  Dating services 
4.  Cloud based backup services (to store or share files) 
Answers in column:  
1.  Very interested  
2.  Interested 
3.  Neutral 
4.  Not interested 
5.  Not interested at all  
Q05 [S per statement] 
Over the last 12 months, how many times on average have you online … 
Scripter: Script this as a grid and randomize the statements 
Statements in row (randomize): 
1.  Looked for information on cosmetics and healthcare products 
2.  Looked for information on food and health supplements (nutrition, diet, muscle 

enhancer, …) 

3.  Looked for information on dating services 
4.  Looked for information on cloud based backup services(to store or share files) 
Answers in column:  
1.  At least once a day  
2.  At least once a week 
3.  At last once a month 
4.  At least once every three months 
5.  At least once in the last 12 months  
6.  Never  
Q06 [S per statement] 
Over the last 12 months, how many times did you purchase or subscribe online for … 
Scripter: Script this as a grid and randomize the statements 
Statements in row (randomize): 
1.  Cosmetics and healthcare products 
2.  Food and health supplements (nutrition, diet, muscle enhancer, …) 
3.  Dating services 
4.  Cloud based backup services (storage of large files, backup of pictures, …) 
Answers in column:  
1.  At least once a day  
2.  At least once a week 
3.  At last once a month 
4.  At least once every three months 
5.  At least once in the last 12 months  
6.  Never  
D  VULNERABILITY/EMPOWERMENT 

137 

 
 
  
  
  
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Q07 [M] 
What are the main REASONS why you buy goods or subscribe for services online?  
Instruction: Please select up to 5 responses that apply.  
Scripter: Randomize. Maximum 5 responses 
1.  I find cheaper products/services online 
2.  I find better quality products/services online 
3.  I can find certain products/services only online 
4.  I save time by buying online 
5.  I don’t like going to shops 
6.  It’s easier to compare prices online 
7.  It’s easier to compare product/service information online 
8.  There’s more choice online 
9.  I can find more information online 
10. I can find product/service reviews by other consumers  
11. I can order at any time of the day/week 
12. Products are delivered to a convenient place  
13. I can return products or cancel subscriptions easily 
14. Other [DP: fixed] 
15. Not applicable [DP: fixed, single] 
Q08 [M] 
Scripter: Randomize. Maximum 5 responses. 
What are your greatest CONCERNS about buying products or subscribing for services 
online?  
Instruction: Please choose up to 5 concerns. 
1.  Long delivery times 
2.  Wrong or damaged products will be delivered  
3.  Products/services will not be delivered at all 
4.  Delivery costs or final price are higher than displayed on website 
5.  The quality of the goods/services is not as good as defined 
6.  Delivery arrangements of online sellers might not be convenient for me 
7.  Customer service is poor 
8.  Returning a product I didn't like and getting reimbursed is not easy 
9.  Unsubscribing for a service is not easy 
10. Replacement or repair of a faulty product is not easy 
11. The payment card details may be stolen  
12. My preferred payment method might not be accepted by online sellers 
13. Personal data may be misused 
14. Goods sold online might be unsafe/counterfeit  
15. I don’t trust the information provided to me online  
16. I don’t trust the terms and conditions I have to agree with online  
17. I do not know what my consumer rights are when buying or subscribing online 
18. There is a lower level of consumer protection when buying or subscribing online 
19. I don’t understand the terms and conditions  
20. Other concerns [DP: fixed] 
21. I don’t have any concerns [DP: fixed][Exclusive] 
Q09 [S] 
When buying online do you look at the country of origin of the seller? 
1.  Always 
2.  Most of the time  
3.  Sometimes 
4.  Never 
5.  Not applicable  
E  EMPOWERMENT 

138 

 
 
 
  
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Q10 [M] 
Which languages can you use comfortably for personal interests such as shopping, 
searching the web or other uses? 
1.  Native language (if not English, French or German) 
2.  English 
3.  French 
4.  German 
5.  Other language I know – specify: [O] [DP: not required] 
6.  Any language by using automatic translation (e.g. Google translate) 
7.  None [DP: exclusive] 
Q11 [M] 
Scripter: Ranking question. Maximum 5. Randomize.  
Which of the following do you do to RESEARCH A POSSIBLE ONLINE PURCHASE?  
Instruction: Please identify up to five actions in the order in which they occurred (which 
do you do first, second, third etc.). 
1.  Visit shops in person  
2.  Browse the website of a store that I had visited in person  
3.  Read, listen to or view reports/ads in print/radio/TV  
4.  Read online reviews in portals or independent advice websites (for example run by a 

consumer organisation or governmental body) 

5.  Search using a general search engine (for example Google, Bing, Yahoo) 
6.  Search using a price comparison website  
7.  Visit online market places (for example Amazon marketplace, eBay, [COUNTRY 

SPECIFIC]) 

8.  Visit online service intermediaries (e.g. Expedia, booking.com, Ticketmaster etc.)  
9.  Visit iTunes, Google Play or equivalent stores and portals for games, films, music etc.  
10. Visit social networking sites (for example Facebook, Twitter, Instagram [COUNTRY 

SPECIFIC])  

11. Visit manufacturer / brand websites 
12. Visit seller or service provider websites 
13. Contact online or phone customer service  
14. Discuss with family, friends, colleagues 
15. Not applicable [DP: fixed, single] 
Q12 [S] 
Do you read the terms and conditions of online sellers or buyers?  
1.  Always  
2.  Most of the time  
3.  Sometimes 
4.  Never  
5.  Not applicable  
Base: everyone with answer1, 2 or 3 at Q12 (Q12=1 OR Q12=2 OR Q12=3) 
Q13 [S] 
How difficult is it for you to understand the terms and conditions of online sellers or 
providers?  
1.  Very difficult  
2.  Quite difficult  
3.  Neither difficult nor easy 
4.  Quite easy 
5.  Very easy  
Base: everyone with answer 3 or 4 at Q12 (Q12=3 OR Q12=4) 
Q14 [S] 
Why don’t you (always) read the terms and conditions of online sellers or providers?  
1.  It’s too difficult  
2.  It’s too time-consuming 

139 

 
 
  
  
  
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

3.  I don’t care about the terms and conditions 
4.  I can’t find the terms and conditions 
5.  Other  
Base: all respondents  
Q15 [S] 
Do you know how to stop a subscription for an online service? 
1.  Yes, I look into the rules to stop the subscription before I subscribe for the service 
2.  Yes, but I look into the rules after I have subscribed for the service 
3.  No 
Q16 [S] 
Do you know how to return a product you purchased online? 
1.  Yes, I look into the rules to return the product before I purchase online 
2.  Yes, but I look into the rules after I have ordered the product 
3.  No 
The  next  three  questions  are  intended  to  test  your  knowledge  about  your  consumer 
rights. Please answer them to the best of your ability, without first checking the answer 
from another source 
Q17a [S] 
Which  one  of  the  following  three  statements  is  correct  with  regards  to  Right  of 
withdrawal?  
Scripter: Randomize the order of answer options 1-3. 

1.  If I buy a product online, I usually can simply return it within 14 days after the 

purchase and receive my money back. 

2.  If I buy a product online, I can only return it and receive my money back if I prove 

that I made a mistake or the product is defective.  

3.  If I buy a product online, I can only return it if the seller agrees.  
4.  Don’t know 

Q17b [S] 
Which one of the following three statements is correct with regards to Inertia selling?  
Scripter: Randomize the order of answer options 1-3. 

1.  If a seller sends me a product that I did not order, I have the right to keep it 

without payment of the price. 

2.  If a seller sends me a product that I did not order, I must return it within 10 days 

or I will have to pay for it.  

3.  If a seller sends me a product that I did not order, I have the right to keep it 

without payment, unless the seller claims it back within 10 days.  

4.  Don’t know 

Q17c [S] 
Which  one  of  the  following  three  statements  is  correct  with  regards  to  Authorised 
payments?  
Scripter: Randomize the order of answer options 1-3. 

1.  If I notice a payment transaction from my accounts that I never agreed to, I must 

notify the bank as soon as possible, and I may receive my money back. 

2.  If I notice a payment transaction from my accounts that I never agreed to, I will 

only be able to claim a refund from the bank within 14 days after the transaction.  
3.  If I notice a payment transaction from my accounts that I never agreed to, I must 
notify the seller within 30 days after the transaction and he will refund me unless 
his terms and conditions state otherwise.  

4.  Don’t know 

F  Free trials and subscription 
Q18 [S per statement] 
Over the last 12 months, how many times on average have you ordered online a free or 
cheap sample of goods or subscribed for a free trial period of an online service?  
Scripter: Script this as a grid and randomize the statements 

140 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Statements in row (randomize): 
1.  Dating services 
2.  Cosmetics and healthcare products 
3.  Food and health supplements  
4.  Cloud based storage services (for large document sharing, pictures backup etc) 
5.  Digital services (e.g. backup, antivirus, …) used on mobile devices and via apps (such 

as games) 
6.  Music and Film 
7.  Astrology 
8.  Cooking recipes 
9.  Sales to clear stocks/inventories (various products) 
10. Other 
Answers in column: 
1.  At least once a day  
2.  At least once a week 
3.  At last once a month 
4.  At least once every three months 
5.  At least once in the last 12 months  
6.  Never  
Scripter: IF answer from 1 to 5 is chosen in row 10. Other  

Ask on same page, below this grid:  

Q18_other [O]  
Please specify: [O]  
Base: Option 1-5 chosen for at least one of the items in Q18  
Q19 [S] 
Did you experience one or more problems when ordering a free/cheap test product or 
subscribing for a free/cheap trial period of a service? 
1.  Yes 
2.  No 
Base: everyone with answer 1 at Q19 (Q19=1) 
Q20 [M] 
Scripter: Randomize  
Did you encounter one or more of the following problems ordering a free/cheap trial or 
subscribing for a free/cheap service?  
1.  I wanted to return the sample product but couldn’t  
2.  The seller did not replace or repair a faulty sample product 
3.  I was not able to unsubscribe / I had difficulties to unsubscribe 
4.  I was threatened with debt collectors if I would not pay  
5.  I was harassed by debt collectors 
6.  The cheap offer is available for free elsewhere online 
7.  It took a long time before the sample product was delivered 
8.  The wrong sample product was delivered 
9.  The product/service was never delivered/provided  
10. I was sent products that I did not order 
11. I was not aware that I had subscribed for a service 
12. I could not access the service  
13. My payment card details were stolen  
14. My means of payment was refused by the seller 
15. Delivery costs or final price was higher than displayed  
16. I was not able to contact the seller/provider 
17. My personal data was misused 
18. I could not get my data back when closing my account  
19. Sample product was of lower quality than advertised 
20. Customer service was poor 

141 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

21. The terms and conditions were not respected by the seller/provider 
22. I could not access the seller's website or only limited content was displayed to me 
23. I got extra charges on my credit card without my consent 
24. Other problems [DP: fixed] 
Base: Q19=1 - Show on screen those products with code 1-5 at Q18 to help the 

respondent.  

For those who only made one free trial, their answer is obvious and so they can be auto-

coded (and should not be shown) 

Q21 [M] 
What kind of product or service did you order when experiencing the problem? 
1.  Dating services 
2.  Cosmetics and healthcare products 
3.  Food and health supplements  
4.  Cloud based storage services (for large document sharing, pictures backup etc) 
5.  Digital services (e.g. backup, antivirus, …) used on mobile devices and via apps (such 

as games) 
6.  Music and Film 
7.  Astrology 
8.  Cooking recipes 
9.  Sales to clear stocks/inventories (various products) 
[DP: show open answer from Q18_other if 1-5 is selected for ‘Other’ in Q18]  
Base: everyone who selected more than one product at Q21. Show on screen those 

products that were selected at Q21 to help the respondent. 

For those who only made one free trial or who selected one answer at Q21, their answer 

is obvious and so they can be auto-coded (and should not be shown) 

Q21a[S] 
And what kind of product or service did you order when experiencing your most recent 
problem? 
1.  Dating services 
2.  Cosmetics and healthcare products 
3.  Food and health supplements  
4.  Cloud based storage services (for large document sharing, pictures backup etc) 
5.  Digital services (e.g. backup, antivirus, …) used on mobile devices and via apps (such 

as games) 
6.  Music and Film 
7.  Astrology 
8.  Cooking recipes 
9.  Sales to clear stocks/inventories (various products) 
DP: show answer from Q18_other if 1-5 is selected for ‘Other’ in Q18 (AND this is also 
selected in Q21)]  
Base: Option 1-5 chosen for at least one of the items in Q18  
Q22 [S] 
Where did you find the offer for a free / cheap trial or subscription? 
1.  It popped up as an advertisement when I was using the internet 
2.  I got the offer when I was participating in a contest/competition 
3.  I got the offer when I was on my social media account 
4.  I responded to an offer when I was looking for the product or service  
5.  I got the offer when I was called by a seller/provider on the phone 
6.  I don’t know 
7.  Other, please specify: [O] [DP: not required] 
Base: Option 1-5 chosen for at least one of the items in Q18  
Q23 [S] 
Why did you order this free/cheap product or subscribe for this free/cheap online service?  
1.  It was a good offer 

142 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

2.  It was a product or service that I could use or wanted 
3.  It was a limited offer 
4.  Other 
Base: Option 1-5 chosen for at least one of the items in Q18  
Q24 [S] 
Where did you order this free product or subscribe for this free online service?  
1.  From a seller or service provider based in my country of residence 
2.  From a seller or service provider based in another EU country 
3.  From a seller or service provider based outside the EU  
4.  I bought/ordered online but do not know where the seller or service provider is based 
Base: Option 1-5 chosen for at least one of the items in Q18  
Q25 [S] 
Scripter: Insert textboxes after “Please specify”.  
Which website/Appstore/app did you use to order or subscribe 
[if Q19=1- insert (below question text and above answer options:) product selected in 
Q21a 
if Q19=2 – insert (below question text and above answer options:) one random product 
for which code 1-5 is selected in Q18] 
1.  URL (e.g. www.amazon.de) Please specify: [O]  
2.  Appstore (e.g. iTunes, Google Play) Please specify: [O]  
3.  Social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) Please specify: [O]  
4.  App (e.g booking.com app, Airbnb app etc.) Please specify: [O] 
G  Action 
Base: everyone with answer 1 at Q19 (Q19=1) 
Q26 [M] 
For your most recently experienced problem(s) with an online order of a free/cheap trial 
or subscription, what action did you take?  
Instruction: you can select multiple answers 
1.  I complained about it to the seller or service provider 
2.  I complained about it to the manufacturer 
3.  I complained about it to the police 
4.  I complained about it to an anti-fraud organisation 
5.  I complained about it to a public authority  
6.  I complained about it to the payment company 
7.  I brought the matter to an out-of-court dispute resolution body (ADR) such as an 

ombudsman, arbitration, mediation or conciliation body  

8.  I took the business concerned to court 
9.  I brought it to the media (radio, tv, social media…) 
10. Other 
11. Don’t know [Exclusive] 
12. I didn’t take any action [Exclusive] 
Base: everyone with answer 1-10 at Q26  
Q27 [S] [SGRID] 
Considering the actions that you selected at the previous question, how easy was the 
action to complain?  
Scripter: Same list as Q26a – for codes 1-10. Do not show codes 11 and 12 
1.  Very easy  
2.  Quite easy 
3.  Neither easy nor difficult 
4.  Quite difficult 
5.  Very difficult 

143 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Base: everyone with answer 1-10 at Q26 
Q28 [S] [SGRID] 
How satisfied were you with the outcome of your action to complain?  
1.  Very satisfied  
2.  Quite satisfied 
3.  Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 
4.  Quite dissatisfied 
5.  Very dissatisfied 
Base: everyone with answer 12 at Q26 
Q29 [M] 
If you didn’t take any action, what were the main reasons?  
1.  I was unlikely to get a satisfactory solution to the problem I encountered  
2.  The sums involved were too small 
3.  I did not know how or where to complain 
4.  I was not sure of my rights as a consumer 
5.  I thought it would take too long 
6.  I tried to complain about other problems in the past but was not successful 
7.  I thought complaining would have led to a confrontation, and I do not feel at ease in 

such situations  

8.  Other 
9.  Don’t know [Exclusive] 
Base: Option 1-5 chosen for at least one of the items in Q18  
Q30 [S] 
When you ordered the free/cheap trial or subscription, did the trader seek your explicit 
consent as to the fact that, by ordering or subscribing, you were accepting to have more 
products delivered or get extra services?  
1.  Yes, my explicit consent was sought on all occasions 
2.  Yes, but my explicit consent was sought only occasionally 
3.  My explicit consent was never sought  
4.  Don't know 
A  IDENTIFICATION – DEMOGRAPHICS PART 2 
Base: all respondents  
Z03 [S] 
At what stage did you complete your full-time studies? 
1.  Elementary (primary) school or less 
2.  Some high (secondary) school 
3.  Graduation from high (secondary) school 
4.  Graduation from college, university or other third-level institute 
5.  Post-graduate degree (Masters, PhD) beyond your initial college degree  
6.  Still studying full-time 
7.  Other qualification 
8.  Refusal  
Z04 [S] 
Which of these best describe your current work status? 
1.  Employed full time 
2.  Employed part time 
3.  Self-employed 
4.  Unemployed but looking for a job 
5.  Unemployed and not looking for a job/looking after the home  
6.  Unable to work due to long-term illness or disability 
7.  Retired 
8.  In full time education/student 
9.  Other 

144 

 
 
  
  
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Z05 [S] 
In which region do you currently live? 
Scripter: add list of regions  
Z06 [S] 
Would you say you live in a: 
1.  Metropolitan zone 
2.  Other town / urban centre 
3.  Rural zone 
Z07 [S] 
Thinking about your household’s financial situation, would you say that making ends meet 
every month is: 
1.  Very difficult 
2.  Fairly difficult 
3.  Fairly easy 
4.  Very easy 
5.  Don’t know 
END OF QUESTIONNAIRE 

145 

 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

11.  Annex website screening exercise (market analysis) 

11.1.  Introduction 

As  specified  in  the  Terms  of  Reference,  the  website  screening  exercise  had  two 
objectives:  

  To develop a typology of business models used in business to consumer (B2C) 

trade relying on "free" trials.  

  To  estimate  the  extent  to  which  problematic  practices  occur  with  "free” 
trials in four categories of B2C: (1) health supplements, (2) cosmetics, (3) online 
dating  services,  and  (4)  cloud-based  backup  &  video/music  streaming.  The  first 
three categories were specified in the Terms of Reference. The choice of the fourth 
category is discussed further in Section 12.2.2 below. 

The geographical scope of the screening exercise includes the EU28 countries plus Iceland 
and Norway.  

These objectives were met using a combination of desk research and analysis of primary 
data collected via screening 900 websites, Facebook pages and mobile apps. 

Figure 27:  Methodology for developing a typology of business models  

Step 1: 
Development of a 
framework of 
analysis 

Step 2: 
Development of 
the data collection 
protocol via desk 
research 

Step 3:  
Data collection & 
analysis: 
1) Business Model 
typology 
2) Extent of 
problematic 
practices 

• Rapid Evidence 
Assessment of 
grey literature 

• Desk research 

• Desk research 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

In the first step, a framework for analysis was developed to identify business models, plus 
key characteristics of free trials, including characteristics which would lead to misleading 
free  trials.  The  framework  was  developed  based  on  a  literature  review,  including  both 
grey literature and peer-reviewed literature, covering such issues as:  

  Pricing  strategies:  e.g.,  what  goods/services  are  ‘free’  and  for  how  long;  what 
goods/services  consumers  have  to  pay  for;  whether  it  is  a  one-off  payment  or  a 
rolling payment and, in this case, for how long.  

  What  consumers  have  to  give  up  in  return  for  the  free  trial:  e.g.  personal 

information and /or credit card details. 

  Sources  of  revenues:  e.g.,  unintended  purchases,  small  periodic  charges,  sale  of 

personal information to third parties. 

  Relevant  behavioural  biases:  e.g.,  information  overload,  forgetfulness,  framing-in 
limits,  testimonials,  scarcity  of  product, 

purchasing  strategies  (e.g.  time 
misleading advertising). 

  Cancellation  practices:  e.g.  how  hard  it  is  to  find  the  cancellation  procedure, 
whether  conditions for  cancelling are difficult to put in place, whether cancelation 
is  possible  at  any  time  or  only  after  a  certain  period  (e.g.  on  the  1-year 
anniversary). 

  Duration  of  the  contract:  e.g.,  whether  contractual  information  is  clearly  stated, 

whether shortening it is linked to a penalty (monetary or other).  

Using this framework, in Step 2 a data collection protocol was developed that was applied 
to searches of real websites, apps and Facebook pages. In Step 3 this protocol was used 
to structure the review of websites, apps and Facebook pages providing free trials, in the 
B2C areas of interest. The sampling protocol to select the websites/apps/Facebook pages 
for which data was collected is described in the additional information section.  

11.2.  Results 

11.2.1.

  Consumers and business models 

This  section  examines  the  literature  (academic  and  grey  literature)  and  European 
Consumer Centres Network (ECC-Net) reports in order to draw conclusions on consumer 
biases  and  behaviours,  and  the  trader  behaviours,  and  key  aspects  of  free  trials.  The 
phrase “There’s no such thing as a free lunch” coined by Milton Friedman in the 1970s47 
suggests that anything offered for free invariably has a monetary cost, a transaction cost, 
or  a  perceived  expectation  to  reciprocate  the  gesture.  This  is  demonstrated  in  some  of 
the literature which dissects consumer biases in transaction processes. 

The  literature  review  focused  on:  (1)  some  studies indicated in the  Terms  of  Reference; 
(2) studies and data from consumer associations/watchdogs, e.g. the European Consumer 
Centres  (ECC);  (3)  marketing  and  business  magazines  and  reports  (e.g.  Forbes, 
GigaOM);  (4)  ‘snowballing’  of  literature  cited  by  these  studies;  (5)  additional  studies  or 

47   Laochumnanvanit, K., & Bednall, D. H. (2005). Consumers' evaluation of free service trial offers. Academy of 
marketing science review, 11, 1-13; Friedman, D. A., (2008). Free offers: A New Look. 38 N.M. L. Rev. 49-
98. 

148 

 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

references in the press found via searches undertaken in Google; and (6) peer-reviewed 
publications searched via Google Scholar and other databases, e.g. JSTOR. The literature 
was sourced between March and August 2015 drawing upon literature mainly from 2005 
onwards. 

Are consumers rational actors?  

61%  of  all  internet  users  in  the  European  Union  shopped  online  in  2013.48  In  an  e-
commerce  world,  opportunities  to  shop  globally  have  been  increased  and,  with  this, 
opportunistic traders have more chance of targeting vulnerable consumers. According to a 
report  from  the  ECC-Net,  30%  of  ECC  offices  (9  offices)  across  Europe  receive  large 
numbers  of complaints about free trial scams,  usually from  online interactions.49 Usually 
consumers  in  pursuit  of  their  product  fail  to  read  the  fine  print  on  the  transaction  and 
provide  their  credit  card  details  to  avail  of  the  seemingly  free  offer,  often  unaware  that 
they  are  signing  up  to  a  subscription.  While  many  business  models  provide  terms  and 
conditions (T&Cs) for customers before transactions are complete, many may rely on the 
lack of consumer incentive to fully read the T&Cs or to completely understand all that is 
contained therein. 

It is important to understand that while many of the following consumer behaviours can 
occur  ex-ante  and  ex-post  the  transaction,  many  businesses  rely  on  the  consumer 
displaying  these  biases  ex-ante.  In  this  respect,  the  contract  has  been  accepted  and 
consumers  can  be  left  at  a  disadvantage.  Typically,  consumers  are  looking  for  shortcuts 
which aid them in their decision-making and too much information can have an adverse 
effect on their choices. 

Some behavioural theories posit that rational consumers will invest time and energy into 
sourcing salient information as long as the costs of doing so do not exceed the expected 
value of the information received. Excesses in information can negatively affect consumer 
behaviour  as  individuals  can  become  confused  and  distracted  by  irrelevant  information 
which can negatively affect decision-making.50 Although other researchers might disagree 
with this point,51 Becher52 argues that consumers may grow weary and frustrated if they 
are unable to process the information found in the standard form contracts (SFCs)/T&Cs 
just  as  they  may  grow  tired  and  unable  to  process  irrelevant  information  which  can 
overshadow  the  information  specifically  relevant  to  their  choice.  This  is  known  as 
information  overload.  In  simple  terms,  even  if  consumers  have  good  information,  they 
can still make bad choices. 

Arguably,  there  are  differences  between  online  shopping  and  physical  world  shopping. 
Nonetheless,  each  has  its  own  environmental  specificities.  Often,  in  the  physical  world, 
noise  levels  and  time  pressure  coming  from  the  trader/other  consumers  can  lead 
consumers  to  forego  the  option  of  reading  T&Cs.  However,  although  Becher  and  Zarsky 

48   Eurostat. 

(2015). 

“Internet  use 

statistics  – 

individuals.”  Eurostat.eu.  Retrieved  3/08/2015 

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Internet_use_statistics_-
_individuals#Six_in_ten_internet_users_shopped_online 

49   ECC 

Net, 

Retrieved 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food-safety/docs/news_20131206_ecc-report-cross-border-e-
commerce_en.pdf 

e-commerce.” 

cross-border 

“Fraud 

n.d. 

in 

2/11/2015 

50   Becher,  S.I.  (2007).  Behavioral  Science  and  Consumer  Standard  Form  Contract.”  Louisiana  Law  Review. 

Volume 61. Number 1. Fall 2007. 

51   Becher,  S. I.,  &  Zarsky,  T.  (2008).  E-contract  doctrine  2.0:  standard form  contracting in  the  age  of online 

user participation. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 14(2) 

52   Becher,  S.I.  (2007).  Behavioral  Science  and  Consumer  Standard  Form  Contract.”  Louisiana  Law  Review. 

Volume 61. Number 1. Fall 2007 

149 

 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

(2008)  suggest  that  online  consumers  have  more  time  to  reflect  on  their  choices,  they 
may also face time constraints through fear of missing out on an opportunity to avail of a 
free offer due to limited stocks or limited time left to place a claim on the stock. This idea 
is  explored  by  the  behavioural  experiments  (outlined  in  Annex  11)  which  show  that 
shoppers of the hypothetical vignettes created by the study team were not very affected 
by claims of scarcity; however, it would be imprudent to suggest that scarcity would not 
have an effect on consumers when making real purchases. 

Impact of costs of information on decision-making 

Environmental  conditions  can  play  a  role  in  how  consumers  behave.  Sometimes, 
regardless  of  the  availability  of  T&Cs,  there  are  a  number  of  reasons  why  a  rational 
consumer would not engage in a time consuming process such as reading the T&Cs. This 
is  because  the  benefits  of  extracting  the  salient information  could  be  outweighed  by  the 
costs of reading parts of the contract deemed unnecessary for the consumer. Terms and 
conditions  can  then  be  made  available  but  can  be  flooded  with  incomprehensible 
information  that  consumers  feel  little  incentive  to  read.  Further,  asymmetric  power  in 
drafting  T&Cs  may  leave  online  consumers  feeling  a  sense  of  powerlessness  while 
physical world shoppers have an opportunity to interface and attempt to negotiate.53 

Consumers  have  a  difficult  time  in  evaluating  and  imagining  risks.  A  number  of  related 
phenomena  such  as  overconfidence  bias,54  cognitive  dissonance,  confirmation  bias  and 
the  sunk-cost  effect,  and  trader  strategies  like  the  low-ball  technique  each  influence 
consumer  behaviour.55  First,  overconfidence  bias  reduces  an  individual’s  ability  to 
envisage  risks,  especially  when  they  are  expecting  good  outcomes  from  the  product  or 
service.56  This  can  apply  to  consumers  seeking  beauty  products,  health  supplements, 
online  dating  and  web-based  services,  among  other  sectors.  Secondly,  cognitive 
dissonance  can  serve  to  undermine  evidence  that  is  incompatible  with  the  consumer’s 
choice, meaning that even if all relevant information is provided to consumers, they may 
not  factor  it  into  their  decision-making.  This  could  be  quite  salient  in  situations  where 
consumers  are  particularly  insecure  and  focused  on  obtaining  a  product,  such  as  weight 
loss  supplements.  Thirdly,  and  closely  linked  to  the  last  point,  confirmation  bias  is  a 
process whereby consumers will seek information that reinforces their ex-ante decision to 
enter  into  a  contract  with  a  trader.57  Finally,  the  sunk  cost  effect  can  explain  that 
individuals  are  likely  to  continue  with  a  transaction  once  they  have  already  invested 
heavily  in  the  decision-making  process.58  In  effect,  they  have  already  invested  enough 
resources  in  the  process  that  this  time  would  be  considered  wasted  if  there  was  no 
transactional outcome.  

53   Becher,  S. I.,  &  Zarsky,  T.  (2008).  E-contract  doctrine  2.0:  standard form  contracting in  the  age  of online 

user participation. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 14(2) 

54   Hoffman,  D.  A.  (2005).  Best  Puffery  Article  Ever,  The.  Iowa  L.  Rev.,  91,  1395.  Chicago;  Becher,  S.  I.,  & 
Zarsky, T. (2008). E-contract doctrine 2.0: standard form contracting in the age of online user participation. 
Michigan  Telecommunications  and  Technology  Law  Review,  14(2);  Becher,  S.I.  (2007).  Behavioral  Science 
and Consumer Standard Form Contract.” Louisiana Law Review. Volume 61. Number 1. Fall 2007. 

55   Becher,  S.I.  (2007).  Behavioral  Science  and  Consumer  Standard  Form  Contract.”  Louisiana  Law  Review. 

Volume 61. Number 1. Fall 2007. 

56   Hoffman,  D.  A.  (2005).  Best  Puffery  Article  Ever,  The.  Iowa  L.  Rev.,  91,  1395.  Chicago;  Becher,  S.  I.,  & 
Zarsky, T. (2008). E-contract doctrine 2.0: standard form contracting in the age of online user participation. 
Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 14(2) 

57   Becher,  S.I.  (2007).  Behavioral  Science  and  Consumer  Standard  Form  Contract.”  Louisiana  Law  Review. 

Volume 61. Number 1. Fall 2007. 

58   Becher,  S.I.  (2007).  Behavioral  Science  and  Consumer  Standard  Form  Contract.”  Louisiana  Law  Review. 

Volume 61. Number 1. Fall 2007. 

150 

 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

These  biases  can  be  potentially  revealing  about  consumer  behaviour,  especially  in  the 
context  of  subscriptions  or  trials.  First,  overconfidence  can  impact  on  how  individuals 
perceive  or  imagine  their  outcomes.  In  signing  up  to  a  trial  (which  results  in  a 
subscription) or to a subscription, consumers may not understand the long term impacts 
of their decision and instead focus on the short term gains. It may also be the case that a 
consumer  has  sought  out  just  enough  information  on  which  to  base  their  decision,  but 
has  not  adequately  examined  or  digested  all  the  relevant  information.  This  can  facilitate 
duplicitous trading techniques and lead consumers to make decisions without awareness 
of  the  consequences.  As  the  results  from  the  behavioural  experiment  in  Annex  12 
highlighted,  consumers  have  a  tendency  towards  overestimating  their  likelihood  of 
cancelling  a  subscription.  In  reality,  the  experiment  shows  that  of  those  who  intend  to 
cancel  only  38%  do.  Conversely,  the  behavioural  experiment  showed  that  consumers 
believe that others are more likely to notice fees than they are. 

The tendency for individuals to contemplate only the short term outcomes might explain 
how  cognitive  dissonance  manifests  in  some  consumers.  Confirmation  bias  could 
potentially have an interesting role to play in how individuals make decisions. In order for 
confirmation  bias  to  come  into  play,  the  consumer  must  look  for  indicators  which  reveal 
that  their  decision  was  the  correct  one.  Traders  can  supply  such  information  through 
testimonials,  through  detailing  the  purported  benefits  of  the  product  or  services  or 
through soliciting endorsement from healthcare professionals or celebrities, for example. 

The sunk-cost effect might explain if consumers are likely to accept and continue on with 
a  subscription,  especially  inertia  based  subscriptions,  given  the  relationship  they  may 
have  built  with  the  product  or  service  and  the  costs  they  might  incur  if  they  seek  this 
product or service elsewhere. In this context consumers may also reach saturation point, 
and  accept  their  outcome  as  a  fait  accompli.  The  sunk  cost  effect,  coupled  with 
overconfidence bias and cognitive dissonance, might impact on a consumer’s decision to 
accept their choice and to stick with it. 

Finally,  the  ‘reciprocity  norm’  is  an  important  bias  in  the  context  of  free  trials.  Often, 
when consumers are faced with free  samples,  they may  feel an obligation to respond to 
this  sample  by  purchasing  a  product  or  subscription.59  This  response  does  not  always 
have  to  be  a  monetary  transaction  and  consumers,  in  a  bid  to  obtain  a  free  product  or 
service,  may  not  agree  to  provide  an  upfront  or  continuous  monetary  payment  to  a 
trader.  However,  consumers  may  incur  other  costs.  A  common  trade  off  of  the  internet 
age is the provision of personal information that is transferred to a trader and which can 
be used to specifically target consumers in order to engage with them in future marketing 
attempts.60 The next section will explore the idea of “free” in more detail and how traders 
may use framing techniques to entice consumers. 

Something for nothing? Traders’ framing techniques 

Most of this section has so far focused on consumer biases and consumers’ approaches to 
transactions.  This  has  provided  some  understanding  of  consumer  behaviour  and  how 
traders  might  factor  human  psychology  into  their  business  strategies.  A  number  of 
traders offer free trials/samples as part of their business model. This section will look at 
how businesses can rely on certain behaviours and attempt to draw out different types of 
free business models based on the literature. 

59   Friedman, D. A., (2008). Free offers: A New Look. 38 N.M. L. Rev. 49-98. 
60   Hoofnagle,  C.J.,  and  Jan  Whittington.  2014.  Free:  Accounting  for  the  Costs  of  the  Internet’s  Most  Popular 

Price. 61 UCLA L. REV. 606 (2014) 

151 

 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Sales’ techniques employed by traders can influence consumer behaviour in entering into 
contracts  without  having  read  the  T&Cs  and  can  be  adopted  by  a  number  of  business 
models,  legitimate  or  otherwise.  For  instance,  low-ball  techniques  can  encourage 
consumers  to  enter  into  contracts  and  accept  conditions  they  would  not  have  agreed  to 
had all of the information been presented up front (e.g. the product or service might be 
advertised at one price, and other fees are then added once the consumer agrees to the 
first  price);  or,  there  is  an  introductory  price  and  the  subsequent  transactions  for  an 
equivalent  product/service  is  then  higher.61  If  a  consumer  has  already  invested  a  lot  of 
time  in  the  process  they  are  likely  to  accept  other  hidden  costs  (i.e.  sunk-cost).  An 
example of a low-ball technique would be an online trader offering a sample of a product 
for  free  and  then  requiring  a  consumer  to  sign  up  to  a  subscription  where  costs  will  be 
incurred. 

The  provision  of  goods  and  services  for  free  has  a  profound  psychological  effect  on 
consumers.  Offering  goods  and  services  for  free  allows  consumers  to  sample  what  the 
trader  has  to  offer  in  the  hope  of  encouraging  them  to  continue  the  use  of  these  goods 
and  services.62  Offering  free  stock  or  services  can  be  the  basis  of  many  legitimate 
business  models  according  to  Chris  Anderson.63  Hoofnagle  and  Whittington64  cite 
Anderson  in  explaining  how  free  offers  alleviate  consumers  from  the  burden  of  placing 
their own value on a product or service and makes them more amenable to try the good 
or  service.  Boush,  Friestad,  and  Wright65  claim  that  the  concept  of  free  offers  is  a 
deceptive  framing  technique.  Anderson66  has  listed  a  number  of  business  models  and 
categorised  them  into  three  groups:  models  that  entice  the  consumer  to  pay  for 
something after the free component (e.g. a free trial); a third party subsidising the costs 
of the transactions between two parties (e.g. allowing access to web-content for free but 
collecting  revenues  from  third-party  advertisers);  and,  freemiums  (e.g.  free  service-
limited  websites).67  As  we  will  see  later,  the  free  component  can  have  a  positive 
psychological impact on consumers. 

Laochumnanvanit  &  Bednall68  can  shed  some  light  on  our  conceptual  understanding  of 
consumer  behaviour.  They  posit  that  service-based  free  trials  solicit  a  greater  drive  for 
consumers  to  reciprocate  than  product  sampling  does;  however,  given  that  the  authors 
discuss this in the context of interpersonal services (e.g. massages) it is unlikely that this 
feeling  extends  to  online  services  that  involve  no  interpersonal  interaction.  Although 
unable  to  definitively  prove  their  propositions,  Laochumnanvanit  &  Bednall69  proposed  a 

61   Becher,  S.I.  (2007).  Behavioral  Science  and  Consumer  Standard  Form  Contract.”  Louisiana  Law  Review. 

Volume 61. Number 1. Fall 2007. 

62   Hoofnagle,  C.J.,  and  Jan  Whittington.  2014.  Free:  Accounting  for  the  Costs  of  the  Internet’s  Most  Popular 

Price. 61 UCLA L. REV. 606 

63   Anderson, C. (2013). Free: How today's smartest businesses profit by giving something for nothing. Random 

House. 

64   Hoofnagle,  C.J.,  and  Jan  Whittington.  2014.  Free:  Accounting  for  the  Costs  of  the  Internet’s  Most  Popular 

Price. 61 UCLA L. REV. 606 

65   Boush, Friestad and Wright (2009) in  Hoofnagle, C.J., and Jan Whittington. 2014. Free: Accounting for the 

Costs of the Internet’s Most Popular Price. 61 UCLA L. REV. 606 

66   Anderson, C. (2013). Free: How today's smartest businesses profit by giving something for nothing. Random 

House. 

67   Sundelin,  Anders,  2009,  “50  Business  Models  Based  on  Free,”  tbmdb.blogspot.com,  10  July  2009.  As  of  3 
August  2015:  http://tbmdb.blogspot.com/2009/07/50-business-models-built-on-free.html;  Anderson,  C. 
(2013). Free: How today's smartest businesses profit by giving something for nothing. Random House. 

68   Laochumnanvanit, K., & Bednall, D. H. (2005). Consumers' evaluation of free service trial offers. Academy of 

marketing science review, 11, 1-13. 

69   Laochumnanvanit, K., & Bednall, D. H. (2005). Consumers' evaluation of free service trial offers. Academy of 

marketing science review, 11, 1-13. 

152 

 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

number  of  different  assumptions  on  consumer  behaviour.  Some  of  these  assumptions 
centre on the role of scepticism as a trait in consumer behaviour, how types of free trials 
are approached (more scepticism towards credence services versus experiential services) 
and consumers’ approach to full and partial free trial offers over facilitating or augmenting 
free  trials.  The  authors  also  assume  that  individuals  with  a  higher  propensity  towards 
feelings  of  obligation  to  reciprocate  are  more  likely  to  avoid  free  trial  offers.70  These 
assumptions,  are  not  discussed  using  real  examples;  however,  they  provide  a  lens 
through  which  to  examine  consumer  behaviour  in  the  context  of  free  trials  and 
understanding  of  how  businesses  are  likely  to  attract  consumers  with  the  offer  of  free 
goods or services. 

Traders  may  be  aware  of  consumer  biases  and  integrate  these  behaviours  into  their 
marketing  strategies.  Friedman  argues  that  choosing  a  free  option  should  be  a  rational 
choice71, but  

Cognitive psychology and reciprocity theory demonstrate that the power of a free 
offer  will  induce  consumers  to  behave  differently,  making  them  more  likely  to 
engage in a transaction with a free offer than a transaction without a free offer […] 
The powerful expressive function of the word "free" tactically puts consumers at a 
disadvantage  even  in  the  situations  where  current  laws  and  regulations  are 
satisfied.72 

In  this  respect  it  is  important  to  see  these  free  offers  as  framing  techniques,  aimed  at 
enticing  consumers  to  engage  with  the  trader.  They  form  part  of  both  legitimate  and 
illegitimate trading models which incorporate free trials and samples into their framework. 
Based  on  the  previous  section,  we  can  infer  that  some  free  trial  models  (e.g.  inertia 
based  models)  can  rely  on  consumers  ignoring  the  T&Cs,  given  their  high  transaction 
costs and the effect of receiving something for free. 

Puffery  is  another  framing  technique  which  exploits  consumer  biases.  Puffery  is  a  vague 
way  of  describing  the  product  or  service  to  inflate  its  appeal  (e.g.  testimonials).73  Such 
techniques  appeal  to  a  consumer’s  need  for  a  shortcut  to  stem  an  information  overload 
and confirm what it is they want to know (i.e. confirmation bias).  

The role of social media in trading 

Little is known about the role of applications or social media more generally (based on the 
literature)  besides  what  is  available  from  consumer  agencies  and  other  official  reports. 
These sources, however, do not typify business models based on the role of these media. 
The  ECC-Net74  has  branches  in  each  of  the  28  EU  Member  States,  and  in  Norway  and 
Iceland. The main aim of the network is to resolve complaints in a transnational context. 
Some  of  its  reports  have  shown  that  companies  offering  free  trials  may  rely  on  social 
media  for  advertisement  purposes.  One  ECC-Net  annual  report75  (2013)  outlined  that 
duplicitous  traders  were  advertising  free  trials  for  their  products  and  services  on 

70   Laochumnanvanit, K., & Bednall, D. H. (2005). Consumers' evaluation of free service trial offers. Academy of 

marketing science review, 11, 1-13. 

71   Friedman, D. A., (2008). Free offers: A New Look. 38 N.M. L. Rev. 49-98. 
72   Friedman, D. A., (2008). Free offers: A New Look. 38 N.M. L. Rev. 49-98., p.51 
73   Friedman, D. A., (2008). Free offers: A New Look. 38 N.M. L. Rev. 49-98. 
74   European  Commission:  (2015)  European  Consumer  Centres.  Updated  11/9/2015.  Retrieved  3/08/2015 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/solving_consumer_disputes/non-judicial_redress/ecc-net/index_en.htm 
75 European Commission. (2013). Help and advice on your purchases abroad: The European Consumer Centres 

Network 2013 Annual Report. Retrieved 3/11/2015  

153 

 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Facebook.  Some  of  those  who  followed  the  advertisement  for  one  of  the  three  separate 
offers  reported  that  they  had  unwittingly  signed  up  to  subscriptions.  While  we  can 
therefore state that social media is employed as a marketing tool and has played a role in 
reaching potential consumers, little has been written about social media and apps in the 
wider  conversation  relating  to  consumer  biases  and  behaviours,  or  as  part  of  a  trader’s 
overall business model. 

In  summary,  it  appears  that  traders  make  good  use  of  what  is  known  about  consumer 
biases and this can be built into their business models or marketing strategies. It may be 
said  that  offering  a  free  service  or  product  can  cut  the  transaction  costs  for  consumers 
who may have less to consider in their decision-making process on whether to avail of the 
offer  or  not.  In  turn,  traders  may  rely  on  a  number  of  behaviours  in  order  to  boost  the 
added-value of the free trial for their business, for  example, by relying on consumers to 
take information shortcuts by bypassing T&Cs and engaging in a paid subscription at the 
end of the trial period. It appears as if both parties are mutually benefitting from a “free” 
transaction, although there is a definite imbalance in who benefits the most. 

11.2.2.

   Defining the product categories 

The  Terms  of  Reference  outlined  three  product  categories  that  were  required  for  the 
analysis:  (1)  health  supplements,  (2)  cosmetics,  and  (3)  online  dating  services.  The 
Terms  of  Reference  required  a  fourth  category  that  reflected  a  category  of  digital 
services, to be determined in the study. 

As part of the  rapid-evidence assessment we identified candidate ‘digital services’ based 
on  the  following  criteria:  (1)  those  with  a  greater  frequency  of  consumer  problems 
reported (e.g. as capture by the ECC reports/database) and (2) those that were identified 
as topical. We also were seeking candidate services that used business models based on 
“free”  trials  and  that  had  characteristics  that  were  present  in  services  that  offered 
misleading free trials.  

Desk  research  indicated  that  strong  candidates  for  the  fourth  B2C  category  were  cloud-
based  backup  services  and  video/music  streaming.  Although  we  found  little  data 
suggesting  that  these  were  services  that  consumers  have  frequently  complained  about, 
evidence  suggested  that  they  were  growing  market  areas  and  therefore  topical.  In 
addition,  these  are  services  where  (1)  “free”  trials-based  business  models  are  frequent 
and  (2)  that  they  appear  to  have  features  present  in  misleading  “free”  trials.  The 
inclusion  of  cloud  based  backup  services  and  video/music  streaming  as  a  fourth  B2C 
category was validated by the steering group early in the study.  

11.2.3.

   What the web search tells us in terms of business typologies  

Here  we  discuss  the  typologies  of  free  trial-based  business  models  used  in  practice  by 
companies  operating  in  the  EU  in  each  of  the  four  categories  of  B2C  of  interest.  These 
were developed using evidence collected from web/app/Facebook pages checking for the 
key attributes identified in the framework discussed earlier, i.e.:  

  pricing strategies, specifically how the price of the product is usually defined, e.g. 
per quantify of product, per duration of use  or  some combination of quantity and 
duration, plus information on discounts and delivery costs 

154 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

  what  consumers  give  up,  for  example  personal  details,  whether  these  can  be 

 

 

 

passed onto third parties, whether credit card details are required 
sources  of  revenues,  for  example  if  there  are  any  charges  during  the  free  trial, 
charges after the free trial, etc. 
relevant  behavioural  biases,  for  example,  clarity  of  information  on  terms  and 
conditions for the free trial, presence of framing-in strategies,  
cancellation  practices,  specifically  how  and  when  consumers  can  withdraw,  ,  and 
duration of the contract. 

We  also  consider  what  the  consumer  receives  for  ‘free’.  In  the  website  review  eight 
possible free trial options were considered, based on literature review: 

  A sample of the product (e.g. 'welcome pack') posted to the consumer's address 
  A sample of the product (e.g. 'welcome pack') to be collected by the consumers at 

a specific location 

  A time-unlimited, service-limited trial (example: Survey Monkey offers a free trial 

for surveys up to 10 questions for as long as you want) 

  A  time-limited,  service-limited  trial  (example:  30-day  dating  'free'  trial  limited  to 

viewing only some features of each profile) 

  A  time-limited,  service-unlimited  trial  (example:  30-day  dating  'free'  trial  with 

unrestricted profile viewing) 

  Winning  a  prize  (e.g.  a  smart  phone,  a  tablet,  a  travel)  as  a  result  of  a 

contest/competition 

  Unclear 
  Other (please specify) 

From  this  evidence  we  were  able  to  identify  the  main  types  of  business 
typologies  across  the  different  products.  Note  that  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  this 
section  to  identify  how  many  companies  adopt  a  particular  type  of  free  trial-based 
business  model,  but  rather  to  identify  what  different  typologies  of  free  trial-based 
business models are used in the four B2C categories investigated in this study. As such, 
in  what  follows  we  do  not  report  any  quantitative  results  of  web/app/social  media 
checking.  This  will  be  the  focus  of  subsequent  sections.  In  this  section  we  draw  our 
findings  from  an  overall  assessment  of  the  quantitative  results  reported  in  the  coming 
sections and will use screenshots from several web/app/social media checking to illustrate 
our findings.  

Figure  28  summarises  our  findings  regarding  the  typologies  of  free  trial-based  business 
models  we  have  observed  to  be  used  in  the  B2C  categories  examined.  Based  on 
observations collected during our web/app/Facebook checking exercise, we find that there 
are  broadly  three  typologies  of  B2C  free  trial-based  business  models  among  the  B2C 
categories:  

Typology  1:  Health  supplements  and  cosmetics.  These  business  models  typically involve 
on  free  samples  &  club  membership,  relying  on  consumers  trying  their  products  over  a 
prolonged  and  sustained  period  of  time.  As  such,  consumers  are  encouraged  to  try  the 
product and continue their use for maximum effect. Within this typology, there are three 
broad types of business models: 

  Free samples as a marketing tool 
  Free samples in return for product reviews 
  Club membership from day zero. 

155 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Typology  2:  Dating  services.  Business  models  for  dating  services  tend  to  allow  users  to 
avail  of  a  restricted  service  (either  time-restricted  or  feature-restricted)  for  free  while 
preserving some key features for paying members. Alternatively, this service can be free 
as  the  business  model  is  supported  by  advertisements:  marketers  can  usually  rely  on  a 
steady flow of web-traffic to advertise their products or services. This typology uses two 
types of business models: 

  Advertising-supported free sites 
 

‘Freemium’. 

Typology  3:  Cloud-based  backup  services  and  video/music  streaming  services.  The 
associated  models  allow  consumers  to  engage  with  the  service  and  rely  on  consumers’ 
forgetfulness  or  propensity  to  continue  the  status  quo.  Another  explanation  could  be 
linked  to  the  perceived  transaction  costs  of  closing  an  account  (e.g.  where  an  individual 
has  already  stored  a  lot  of  information  and  would  need  to  retrieve  this  for  storage 
elsewhere).This typology uses two main business modes: 

 
 

‘Consumer inertia reliant’ free trials  
‘Freemium’,  

As the bottom box of Figure 28 illustrates, we find examples of a mix of illegal practices, 
legally  grey  zone  practices  and  legally  acceptable  practices  across  all  typologies  of 
business models.  

What  follows  explains in  greater  detail  the  typologies  of  business  models  summarised  in 
Figure 28.  

Figure 28:  Typology of business models  

Typology 1 

 Free samples & club 
membership 

Typology 2 

 'Freemium' & advertising 

Comon in: Health supplements & 
Cosmetics 

Common in: Dating services 

Typology 3 

'Freemium' & reliance on 
consumer inertia 

Comon in: Cloud-based backup & 
video/music streaming 

1) Free samples as a 
marketing tool 

1) Advertising-supported 
free sites 

1) 'Consumer inertia 
reliant’ free trials 

2) Free samples in return 
for product reviews 

3) Club membership from 
day zero 

2) ‘Freemium’ 

•advertising-supported 

free basic versions 

•paid premium versions 
•Often free trials for 
premium versions 

2) ‘Freemium’ 

•advertising-supported 

free basic versions 

•paid premium versions 
•Often free trials for 
premium versions 

Mix of practices across typologies: Illegal, grey zone and (legally) acceptable 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Typology  1:  Health  supplements  and  cosmetics  -  Free  samples  &  club 
membership 

Typology  1  applies  to  both  Health  supplements  and  Cosmetics,  and  encompasses  three 
broad business models:  

  Free samples as a marketing tool. As Figure 29 below illustrates, in this business 
model traders give away a free sample of their product to customers who sign up, 
without asking for anything in return except an email address and postal address 
to  where  the  sample  should  be  send.  The  postage  is  covered  by  the  trader.  The 
marketing assumption here is that once consumers have experienced the product, 
some  will  like  it  and  will  decide  to  become  (regular)  costumers.  The  Terms  and 
Conditions  (T&C)  suggest  that  consumers  should  expect  to  receive  regular 
promotional materials and newsletters by email or post. In some cases the use of 
personal data is clearly described, consumers are explicitly asked for their consent, 
can  easily  opt  out  (object  and  unsubscribe)  from  receiving  promotional  materials 
(acceptable practice), but in other cases opting out may be difficult for a consumer 
(grey zone or even illegal practice).  

Figure 29:  Health supplements and cosmetics, free samples as a marketing tool 

How it works: The example of ‘Your HealthyChoice’  

Common grey zone/illegal practice in this type of business model:  
Opt out from promotional materials is difficult as information on how to opt out (object and 
unsubscribe) is difficult to find. To be considered illegal if opt-out is impossible for a consumer or if 
the consumer is misled 

Common acceptable practice in this type of business model: 
Consent is asked from consumers, opt out from promotional materials is easy 

  Free samples in return for product reviews. In this business model, consumers are 
asked to sign up and apply to become a product tester of the product, which they 
then  review.  The  successful  product  testers  receive  a  sample  of  the  product  by 
post,  which  they  can  keep  free  of  charge  if  they  provide  a  product  review  to  be 

157 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

posted  online  and/or  ‘like’  on  the  trader’s  Facebook  page.  The  postage  is  usually 
paid by the trader. An illustration of how this business model works is provided in 
Figure  30  below.  The  T&C  suggest  that:  (1)  some  traders  are  transparent  in  the 
way they select product testers; (2) product testers are able to check the accuracy 
of  their  product  review  prior  to  publication;  and  (3)  product  testers  can  opt  out 
(object and unsubscribe)  from  receiving promotional materials from the trader  or 
its  trading  partners  (acceptable  practices).  However,  the  T&C  also  suggest  that 
some traders (1) ask for personal information beyond what would be necessary to 
ascertain  whether  a  person  qualifies  as  a  product  tester  (illegal  practice);  (2) 
provide  limited  transparency  on  how  they  select  product  testers;  (3)  are  unclear 
on  whether  testers  are  able  to  check  the  accuracy  of  their  reviews  before 
publication and challenge what is published; and (4) make it difficult for reviewers 
to  opt  out  (object  and  unsubscribe)  from  receiving  promotional  materials  (grey 
zone practices).  It is possible to find traders that adopt any possible combination 
of these illegal, grey zone and acceptable practices. 

158 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 30:  Health supplements and cosmetics, free samples in return for product reviews 

How it works: The example of ‘Product Testing’  

Common grey zone/illegal practices in this type of business model:  

(1)  Personal information required is beyond relevance for choosing product testers (illegal 

practice) 

(2)  Limited transparency about how product testers are selected 
(3)  Unclear whether testers can check/challenge the accuracy of their reviews  
(4)  Opt out from promotional materials impossible or difficult to find 

Common acceptable practices in this type of business model: 

(1)  Transparency about how product testers are selected 
(2)  Testers can check/challenge the accuracy of their product review  
(3)  Opt out from promotional materials is easy 

159 

 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

  Club membership (from day zero). In this business model, consumers sign up for a 
paid  membership  from  the  day  they  sign in  for  the  “free”  trial  and  until they  say 
otherwise.  Specifically,  consumers  may  be  both  back-charged  for  the  “free” 
sample  and  automatically  engaged  in  a  regular  paid  subscription  if  they  fail  to 
withdraw  during  the  trial  period.76  Problematic  practices  are  common  because 
traders obfuscate the fact that consumers are actually engaging in a membership. 
Consumers are led to believe that they will receive a free sample, and they need 
to provide their payment details77 reportedly for the only purpose of paying for the 
shipping  and  handling.  The  details  of  the  membership  and  back  charge  of  the 
supposedly “free” sample are provided in the small print of the T&Cs, as illustrated 
in  the  ‘Flawless  Elite’  case  in  Figure  31  below.78  If  the  general  presentation  is 
considered  misleading  and  is  likely  to  distort  the  transactional  decision  of  the 
average consumer, the practice is illegal (art. 6 UCPD Directive). If consumer are 
effectively  enrolled  into  a  paying  membership  or  charged  instead  of  a  ‘free’  trial, 
the  clarity  of  pre-contractual  information  is  at  stake  pursuant  to  the  Consumer 
Rights  Directive.  Cancellation  practices  can  also  be  cumbersome.  For  example, 
quite  often  cancellation  requires  returning  the  trial  product  with  a  Return 
Merchandise  Authorization  number,  which  consumers  have  to  request  from  the 
trader within the trial period and in some  cases within a specific time period.79  If 
the  cancelation  requirements  cannot  be  reasonably  fulfilled  by  a  consumer,  the 
practice  may  be  deemed  misleading  and  illegal.  Acceptable  practices  include 
clearly  stating  that  (1)  consumers  are  signing  in  for  a  membership  and  (2)  they 
have  the  right  to  cancel  it  within  a  specific  time  window  –  the  trial  period.  An 
example of this is the case of health supplements ‘Graze’ also illustrated in Figure 
31 below. Another acceptable practice would be to streamline the trial cancellation 
procedure  and  make  sure  that  the  procedure  is  clearly  communicated  to 
consumers. 

76   This practice is often described in the T&C as a “negative clause” and is frequently expressed as exemplified 
here:  “(…)  YOU  UNDERSTAND  THAT  THIS CONSUMER  TRANSACTION  INVOLVES A  NEGATIVE OPTION  AND 
THAT  YOU  WILL  BE  LIABLE  FOR  PAYMENT  OF  PRODUCT  THAT  WAS  SHIPPED  TO  YOU,  AND  FUTURE 
SHIPMENTS  OF  PRODUCT,  IF  YOU  FAIL  TO  NOTIFY  TO  STOP  SUPPLYING  THE  PRODUCT  TO  YOU.  (…)” 
[capital letters as in the original] Source: http://leorskincare.org.uk/ 

77   Common payment methods identified are credit card and PayPal. 
78   Another example comes from the T&C of Stemologica, which state the following: “(…) By placing your trial 
order  today  you’ll  be  shipped  a  30  day  supply  of  LéOR  SkinCare  for  £4.95  S&H.  Try  it  for  10  days  to 
experience the benefits and if for any reason this system is not for you, call Customer Care toll-free at +44 
122 385 1379 within your 10-day trial period to cancel. If you are satisfied, do nothing and you agree to be 
charged £89.83 and for your comfort you will be enrolled in VIP auto ship program, you can cancel any time. 
(…)” Source: http://leorskincare.org.uk/ 

Another  example  is  the  case  of  Cosmetics  Beautmer,  which  T&C  state  “(…)  You  will  then  have  a  certain 
amount  of  time  (Trial  Period),  normally  2  weeks  from  the  date  you  receive  the  trial  goods,  to  sample  and 
evaluate Our Products. If you are not completely satisfied with Products during the trial period, You agree to 
notify us via email that You wish to return the trial Products. If you do not notify us, your card on file will be 
charged the discounted cost of Products, typically £99.98. Furthermore, You will be enrolled in Our AutoRefill 
program  at  default  replenishment  and  charge  rates.  (…)”  [capital  letters  as  in  the  original]  Source: 
https://www.beautemer.com/specials/?ocu&affid=mbk&saffid=546&atrack=bdtrialbutton&btrack= 

A  third  example  comes  from  the  T&C  of  Lifecell  Skincare:  “(…)We're  so  confident  in  the  results  you'll  see 
from  using  this  revolutionary  treatment,  that  we  want  you  to  TRY  before  you  actually  BUY.  If  you  are  not 
satisfied with your results, send it back within 30 days and your order will be canceled. You won't be charged 
anything  besides  the  initial  shipping  and  handling  fee.  However,  if  you  absolutely  love  LifeCell,  (which  we 
expect  you  will!)  and  keep  it  past  the  30  Day  Trial  period,  your  original  form  of  payment  will  be  charged 
£118 for the two-month supply of LifeCell. (…)”[capital letters as in the original] Source: http://www.lifecell-
anti-aging.com/ 

79   One  example  is  the  Lumagenex,  which  states  in  its  T&C:  “(…)Trial  orders  must  be  returned  with  a  valid 
Return Merchandise Authorization (RMA) number within 30 days of enrolling in the Trial. (…) The fastest way 
to  obtain  an  RMA  is  to  contact  Customer  Care  representatives  at  +44  (0)  800  949  6912  or  email  [email 
protected] (…) Source: http://www.lumagenexuk.co.uk/ 

160 

 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 31:  Health supplements and cosmetics, club membership (from day zero) 

How it works (1): The example of ‘Flawless Elite’  

161 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

How it works (2): The example of ‘Graze’  

Common grey zone/illegal practices in this type of business model:  

(1)  Traders may obfuscate that consumers are engaging in a membership (illegal if misleading 

for a consumer) 

(2)  Consumers are led to believe that payment details will be used only for shipping and 

handling costs, not to pay for the trial product (illegal if requirements in relation to price 
information are not met (CRD, UCPD, e-commerce directive; the use of personal date may 
also include grey zone practices80) 

(3)  The details of the membership and possibility of back charges are hidden in the small 
prints of the T&C, often on a different webpage (illegal if considered unclear, failing to 
make consumer aware in prominent manner81 or misleading) 

(4)  Trial cancelation is cumbersome, e.g. requires returning the product with a Return 

Merchandise Authorization number obtained from the trader (illegal if misleading, unclear 
or impossible in practice) 

Common acceptable practices in this type of business model: 

(1)  State clearly on the front page that consumers are signing up for a membership  
(2)  State clearly that consumers have the right to cancel the membership within a specific 

time window  

80 Based on art. 62 Payment Services Directive (PSD), the consumer may claim chargeback if according to the 
circumstances and the agreement, these additional charges were not foreseeable, and were not (implicitly) 
pre-authorized. According to article 6.1.e of the Consumer Rights Directive (CRD) the total price inclusive of 
taxes and all additional costs and charges should be made sufficiently clear; this is particularly relevant when 
a “free” trial may automatically become a paid subscription unless the consumer would return the product or 
cancel  the  agreement  in  due  time.  From  the  point  of  view  of  dubious  personal  data  collection  within  the 
framework  of  the  Personal  Data  Protection  Directives,  it  is  possible  to  state  that  the  credit  card  data 
collection (which is personal data) would occur beyond the agreed purpose of the data processing, if it was 
explicitly  limited  to  the  charging  of  shipping  and  handling  costs  only.  The  data  collection  and  processing 
would then be considered illegal. 

81  According  to  the  Consumer  Rights  Directive,  Article  6  (1)  letters  o)  and  p)  the  trader  has  to  inform  the 
consumer  clearly  on  the  contract’s  duration,  and  when  the  contract  is  of  indeterminate  duration,  the 
minimum  duration  of  the  consumers  obligations  under  the  contract  and  of  the  conditions  to  terminate  the 
contract.  

162 

 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

(3)  Easy and well communicated cancellation procedure  

Typology 2: Dating websites - ’Freemium’ & advertising 

Typology  2  applies  to  dating  websites/apps/social  media  and  comprises  two  business 
models:  

  Advertising-supported free sites. This is a business model were publicity-supported 
websites/apps/social media offer a free service to whoever wants to register. They 
tend to offer a basic level of services, which seldom go beyond displaying a brief 
profile  and  photo  of  each  member,  as  illustrated  in  the  figure  hereafter. 
Consumers  are  able  to  search  for  people  to  contact  using  basic  search/filtering 
functionalities.  These  are  usually  limited  to  personal  characteristics  such  as  age 
group,  gender  or  location.  Registration  is  easy  and  requires  few  personal  details. 
In  some  cases  consumers  can  easily  withdraw  from  the  website  and  delete  their 
personal profile (acceptable practice), but in other  cases this functionality is hard 
to find (grey zone practice, and illegal if this is impossible for a consumer). 

Figure 32:  Dating websites, advertising-supported free sites 

How it works: The example of ‘Fdating.com’  

Common grey zone practice in this type of business model:  

Withdrawal and profile deleting functionality is difficult to find 

Common acceptable practice in this type of business model:  

Withdrawal and profile deleting is easy 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

 

‘Freemium’.  In  this  business  model,  consumers  have  access  to  a  free  basic 
membership,  providing  access  to  a  limited  set  of  services.82  Quite  often  basic 
membership  is  supported  by  publicity  so  basic  members  see  adverts  while 
browsing, for example. Consumers can upgrade to a paid premium membership in 
return  for  access  to  publicity-free,  more  sophisticated  services.  Although 
differences  exist among websites/apps/social media dating services, sophisticated 
services  commonly  available  only  within  paid  subscriptions  include:  (1)  full  and 
unlimited profile viewing; (2) ability to contact other members83; and (3) thorough 
profile  matching.84  Quite  often,  members  with  a  basic  membership  are  offered  a 
time-limited  free  trial  for  the  premium  membership.  Consumers  are  presented 
with one or more price plans and invited to subscribe by providing payment details 
with  the  attraction  that  they  will  enjoy  a  time-limited  free  trial.  This  model  quite 
often  relies  on  consumer’s  inertia:  once  consumer  is  engaged  in  a  paid 
subscription, it stays that way unless the consumer takes the initiative to cancel it. 
Common  illegal  (misleading)  practices  used  in  the  free  trials  involve  (1) 
automatically  engaging  the  consumer  in  a  paid  subscription  after  the  free  trial 
without making this explicit upfront and (2) obfuscating in the small prints of the 
T&C many of the relevant details associated with the free trial, e.g. the duration of 
the  free  trial,  the  cancelation  time  window  and  the  cancelation  procedure85.  The 
‘eHarmony’ example the figure hereafter illustrates  some  of these poor practices. 
Some traders follow acceptable practices in several of these areas, as the example 
of ‘Ireland Dating Service’ illustrates. These include: (1) making it explicit upfront 
that  consumer  will  transit  from  the  free  trial  to  a  paid  subscription;  (2)  clearly 
stating in the free trial sign up page the key features of the trial and following paid 
subscription.  

82   The  set  of  services  available  as  part  of  the  basic  membership  varies  among  websites/apps/social  media. 
Examples  include  (1)  having  access  to  only  part  of  other  members’  profile;  (2)  having  access  to  the  full 
profile of a limited number of people; or (3) having unlimited access to full profiles but establishing contact 
with other members is not allowed. 

83   Kysset is an example of a dating digital service where communication to other members is restricted to paid 
subscribers;  free/basic  subscribers  can  see  the  profiles  but  cannot  contact  of  be  contacted  by  other 
members. Source: http://www.kysset.no/#entrance/top  

84   Match.com  is  an  example  of  ad-supported,  service-limited  basic  membership  where  paid  membership 
includes  additional  features  such  as  profile  matching  based  on  the  company’s  unique  matching  algorithm. 
Source: http://uk.match.com/  

85 Articles 6.1 and 8 CRD require that the key elements of the contract, including the start and end date and the 
cancellation  requirements  and  possibilities,  are  made  sufficiently  clear  in  intelligible  language  before  the 
consumer  is  bound,  and  if  there  is  an  obligation  to  pay,  this  must  be  presented  prominently  before  the 
consumer  places  his  order.  These  rules  apply when  a  free  trial  period  may  automatically  convert  in  a  paid 
subscription  (DG  Justice  Guidance  Document  concerning  Directive  2011/83/EU  of  the  European  Parliament 
and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, under 2.3). 

164 

 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 33:  Dating websites, Freemium model in digital dating services 

How it works (1): The example of ‘eHarmony’  

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

How it works (2): The example of ‘Ireland Dating Service’  

Common illegal practices in this type of business model:  

(1)  Automatically engaging the consumer in a paid subscription after the free trial 

without making it explicit upfront  

(2)  Obfuscating in the small prints of the T&C many of the relevant details associated 
with the free trial, e.g. the duration of the free trial, the cancelation time window 
and the cancelation procedure 

Common acceptable practices in this type of business model: 

(1)  Stating upfront that consumer will transit from the free trial to a paid subscription 

(2)  Stating in the sign up page the key features of the trial and following paid 

subscription (e.g. price, duration, of the contract, cancellation) 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Typology  3:  Cloud  based  backup  services  and  video-music  streaming  - 
’Freemium’ & reliance on consumer inertia 

Typology  3  is  common  among  both  cloud-based  backup  services  and  video/music 
streaming.  It  consists  of  two  main  free  trial-based  business  models.  One  is  what  we 
termed  ‘consumer  inertia  reliant’  free  trials  and  the  other  is  the  freemium  model,  which 
has similarities with the freemium model found in the digital dating services: 

 

‘Consumer  inertia  reliant’  free  trials.  This  is  a  business  model  that  focuses  on 
taking  advantage  of  consumers’  inertia  and  overconfidence.  The  trader  provides 
clear information on the sign up page so consumers are able to understand most 
of  the  terms  of  the  free  trial  before  signing  up,  as  illustrated  in  the  example  of 
‘Audible  UK’  in  the  figure  hereafter.  One  of  the  terms  of  the  free  trial  is  that  by 
signing  up  for  the  free  trial  they  are  also  signing  up  for  transitioning  to  a  paid 
subscription afterwards (in some cases automatically), unless consumers take the 
initiative to cancel before the end of the free trial. In such cases the promotion as 
a  “free”  trial  may  be  misleading,  although  some  information  on  the  subsequent 
subscription  is  provided  and  the  clarity  of  total  price  information  in  accordance 
with  the  CRD  articles  6.1  (e)  and  8.2  may  also  be  contentious.  Also,  once 
consumers  are  enrolled  in  the  paid  subscription  it  is  often  automatically  renewed 
unless consumers take the initiative to cancel it, taking advantage of the fact that 
many  consumers  will  forget  to  cancel.  According  to  the  T&Cs,  some  traders  that 
rely  on  this  business  model  seem  to  be  more  transparent  than  others.  The  ones 
that  seem  more  transparent  (acceptable  practices)86  indicate  that  they  will  (1) 
alert  the  consumer  (often  by  email)  a  few  days  before  the  end  of  the  free  trial 
and/or  (2)  alert  the  consumer  (often  by  email)  before  charging  each  paid 
subscription. Others are not so transparent (grey zone/illegal practices)87 and (1) 
automatically  enrol  consumers  in  a  paid  subscription  after  the  free  trial  without 
further  notice  and/or  (2)  do  not  make  any  effort  to  alert  the  consumer  about 
periodic charges (on their credit cards, PayPal or other)88. 

86   See, 

for 

here: 
http://mozy.co.uk/product/mozy/personal  and  the  case  of  video  streaming  Neterra,  Bulgaria,  here: 
http://www.neterra.tv/page/help/terms 

cloud-based 

example, 

backup 

Mozy, 

case 

the 

UK 

by 

of 

87   See, for example, the case of Keepit, Sweden here: http://www.keepit.com/se/keepit  
88 We cannot say whether this is illegal without actually engaging in the free trial. This is because it is illegal not 
to be sufficiently clear on these terms not only in the T&Cs, but also if the general presentation of the offer 
fails to sufficiently and prominently communicate these terms when signing up. 

167 

 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 34:  Cloud  based  backup  and  video/music  streamlining,  Consumer  inertia  reliant’ 

free trials 

How it works (1): The example of ‘Audible UK’  

Common grey zone89 practices in this type of business model:  

(1)  Automatically enrol consumers in a paid subscription after the free trial without further 

notice 

(2)  Failure to alert consumers before each periodic subscription charges on their credit cards, 

PayPal or other 

Common acceptable practices in this type of business model: 

(3)  Alert consumers that end of the free trial is approaching 

(4)  Alert consumers before charging each paid subscription. 

89 We cannot say whether this is illegal without actually engaging in the free trial. This is because it is illegal not 
to be sufficiently clear on these terms not only in the T&Cs, but also if the general presentation of the offer 
fails to sufficiently and prominently communicate these terms when signing up. 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

  Freemium.  In  this  case,  traders  offer  an  advert-supported  basic  membership  for 
free, for as long as the consumer wants, but with access to only a limited service 
level, e.g. limited number of videos per month or limited data storage. A premium, 
publicity-free  version  is  also  available,  which  offers  a  broader  range  of  services, 
e.g.  unlimited  publicity-free  music  and  video  streaming  and  larger  limits  of  data 
storage90.  Traders  may  offer  free  trials  of  their  premium  version  to  their  free 
subscribers  as  a  prompt  to  engage  them  in  a  paid  subscription.  Consumers  are 
offered  one  or  several  alternative  price  plans  to  choose  from.  The  time-limited 
(and often also quantity limited) free trial is only available once they sign up for a 
paid plan by providing their payment details. Traders using this model may exploit 
consumers’ overconfidence and inertia by engaging them in automatic renewals of 
paid  subscriptions  until the  consumer  takes  the initiative  to  cancel it. Similarly  to 
the Freemium model in the Dating online services, common illegal practices in the 
Freemium  model  for  cloud-based  backup  and  music/video  streaming  are  (1) 
automatic  transition  from  the  free  trial  to  a  paid  subscription  without  making  it 
explicit upfront and (2) hiding in the small print of the T&Cs the key details of the 
free  trial,  namely  its  duration,  cancellation  time  window  and  cancellation 
procedure91.  The  example  of  ‘SafeDataStorage’  illustrates  some  of  these  poor 
practices.  Some  traders  follow  acceptable  practices  in  several  of  these  areas,  as 
the  example  of  ‘Netflix’  illustrates.  These  include:  (1)  making  it  explicit  upfront 
that consumer will transit automatically from the free trial to a paid subscription; 
(2)  clearly  stating  in  the  free  trial  sign  up  page  the  key  features  of  the  trial  and 
subsequent paid subscription. 

90   For  an  example  see,  the  Polish  audio  and  video  streaming  service  Zalukaj.tv  (http://zalukaj.tv)  where 
upgrading for  a  paid  subscription  allows customers  to  turn  off  commercials  while watching  videos  and  also 
removes limits in the number of videos each customer can watch per month. 

91 Articles 6 UCPD and articles 6.1 and 8 CRD.  

169 

 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 35:  Cloud based backup and video/music streamlining, Freemium model 

How it works (1): The example of ‘SafeDataStorage’  

170 

 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

How it works (2): The example of ‘Netflix’ 

Common illegal practices in this type of business model:  

(1)  Automatic transition from the free trial to a paid subscription without making it 

explicit upfront  

(2)  Hiding in the small prints of the T&C the key details of the free trial, namely its 

duration, cancelation time window and cancelation procedure 

Common acceptable practices in this type of business model: 

(1)  State upfront that consumer will automatically transit to a paid subscription at 

the end of the free trial 

(2)  State in the sign up page the key features of the trial and subsequent paid 

subscription (e.g. total price, duration, cancellation)  

171 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

11.2.4.

  Estimating the extent to which “free trials” might be misleading 

Data cleaning and preparation for analysis 

As explained in the sampling protocol, we aimed to collect primary data for a sample 
of  920  websites,  mobile  apps  and  Facebook  pages  broken  down  by  country,  B2C 
category and online channel.  

exceeded 

We 
websites/apps/Facebook pages, broken down as follows: 

numbers 

slightly, 

these 

collecting 

a 

sample 

of 

941 

172 

 
 
Figure 36:  Observed sample by country, B2C category and online channel  

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Iceland 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Number of websites 

Health 
supplements 

Cosmetics  Dating 

Cloud-
based 
backups 

Audio/ video 
streaming 

Facebook 
pages 

Total  Deviation from 

the sample 
design 

6 

6 

7 

7 

4 

6 

6 

5 

6 

8 

6 

7 

6 

5 

6 

9 

6 

6 

4 

4 

7 

5 

6 

6 

7 

4 

6 

7 

6 

3 

8 

8 

5 

5 

4 

6 

8 

6 

6 

3 

4 

7 

6 

6 

2 

8 

4 

6 

7 

5 

6 

8 

12 

6 

6 

3 

6 

8 

5 

6 

4 

4 

7 

4 

4 

5 

5 

2 

4 

3 

4 

6 

6 

6 

4 

5 

2 

4 

6 

3 

6 

3 

2 

5 

4 

5 

6 

4 

2 

5 

4 

3 

6 

6 

7 

4 

2 

2 

4 

7 

3 

6 

2 

2 

5 

2 

4 

4 

4 

3 

4 

0 

4 

4 

4 

1 

5 

2 

0 

4 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

27 

31 

30 

35 

19 

31 

27 

27 

31 

40 

40 

31 

26 

16 

30 

41 

27 

34 

20 

20 

35 

-3 

1 

0 

5 

-1 

1 

-3 

2 

1 

0 

0 

1 

-4 

-4 

0 

1 

2 

9 

0 

0 

0 

 
 
 
Country 

Norway 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Apps (not country-specific) 

Number of websites 

Health 
supplements 

Cosmetics  Dating 

Cloud-
based 
backups 

Audio/ video 
streaming 

Facebook 
pages 

Total  Deviation from 

the sample 
design 

6 

6 

6 

7 

6 

6 

8 

6 

8 

5 

6 

7 

6 

7 

6 

6 

7 

6 

7 

5 

6 

7 

7 

7 

6 

6 

7 

6 

8 

5 

4 

6 

4 

5 

4 

3 

5 

6 

6 

5 

4 

5 

4 

5 

4 

3 

5 

6 

6 

4 

1 

4 

4 

0 

4 

4 

15 

0 

5 

0 

27 

35 

31 

31 

30 

28 

47 

30 

40 

24 

-3 

0 

1 

-4 

0 

3 

12 

0 

0 

4 

21 

Total 

191 

183 

190 

137 

135 

105 

941 

 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

in 

the  Sampling  Protocol, 

As  acknowledged 
that  some 
websites/apps/Facebook  pages  were  reviewed  multiple  times  across  countries, 
because  the  website  review  was  undertake  simultaneously  across  countries  by 
different reviewers. We corrected for this limitation by identifying the duplicate cases 
in the observed sample so these can be excluded from the analysis as appropriate. We 
classify a website/Facebook pages/app as ‘duplicate’ if it verifies the following criteria: 

is  possible 

it 

 
 
 

It has the same brand name as another record in the sample AND 
It has the same URL as another record in the sample AND 
It  has  similar  responses  to  all  or  most  questions  as  another  record  in  the 
sample, which suggests that they refer to the same 'free trial'92 

We then checked for consistency among the duplicate cases of the same brand. When 
discrepancies  are  found  we  conducted  a  supplemental  screening  of  the  same 
website/Facebook  pages/app  and  select  the  case  for  which  the  responses  across  all 
questions  came  close  to  the  supplemental  screening.  All  duplicate  cases  of  the  same 
brand were then assigned the responses of the selected case. 

The  proportion  of  duplicate  cases  ranged  from  5%  in  the  ‘Health  supplements’ 
category and 28% in ‘Audio and Video streaming’, with an overall proportion of 13% 
across all B2C categories.  

Figure 37:  Observed sample for unique brands  

Duplicate brand status 

Health  
suppl 

Cosme-
tics 

Dating 
services 

Observed sample 

Unique brands 
Duplicate brands 

% duplicates 

210 
200 
10 

5% 

210 
187 
23 

11% 

204 
186 
18 

9% 

Cloud-
based 
backup 

155 
129 
26 

17% 

Audio & 
Video 
strea-
ming 
162 
116 
46 

All 

941 
818 
123 

28% 

13% 

The implication of the duplicates correction for the data analysis conducted in the next 
sections is the following: 

All-countries analysis excludes the duplicate cases and, therefore is based on a sample 
of  818  websites/apps/Facebook  pages  broken  down  by  B2C  category  as  indicated  in 
the first row of the We then checked for consistency among the duplicate cases of the 
same brand. When discrepancies are found we conducted a supplemental screening of 
the  same  website/Facebook  pages/app  and  select  the  case  for  which  the  responses 
across  all  questions  came  close  to  the  supplemental  screening.  All  duplicate  cases  of 
the same brand were then assigned the responses of the selected case. 

The  proportion  of  duplicate  cases  ranged  from  5%  in  the  ‘Health  supplements’ 
category and 28% in ‘Audio and Video streaming’, with an overall proportion of 13% 
across all B2C categories. Country-level analysis includes the duplicate cases and,  as 
such is based on 941 websites/apps/Facebook pages. 

92   The  rationale  for  this  criterion  is  that  the  same  brand  may  offer  different  trials  in  different  countries 

and/or have different free trial policies (e.g. withdrawing policies, etc.) in different countries. 

175 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

To what extent problematic practices are associated with a “free trial”  

We  assess  the  extent  to  which  a  ‘free  trial’  may  include  problematic  practices  in  two 
steps:  

  Step 1: For each of the 21 practices considered in the analysis, we define what 
constitutes  a  grey  zone/illegal  practice,  as  opposed  to  a  good,  legally 
acceptable practice, following the guidance provided by the legal experts in the 
team93. 

  We assign a score of -1 for the cases that constitute a grey zone/illegal practice 

and a score of zero to the cases that constitute an acceptable practice.  

  Step  2:  We  obtain  an  overall  ‘grey  zone/illegal  practice  index’,  which gives  us 
the number of grey zone/illegal practices that each trial has in place. We then 
look  at  the  frequency  of  trials  across  the  spectrum  of  values  of  the  ‘grey 
zone/illegal practice index’ to assess the extent to which the “free trials” in our 
sample might include problematic practices.  

We  also  conduct  a  more  sophisticated  statistical  analysis  with  the  objective  of 
identifying which combinations of grey zone/illegal and acceptable practices tend to go 
together, as an input for the mystery shopping exercise. 

Step 1: Defining and scoring grey zone/illegal practices 

In  Step  1,  we  define  what  constitutes  a  grey  zone/illegal  practice,  as  opposed  to  a 
legally  acceptable  practice,  across  a  range  of  21  practices  observed  in  the 
web/Facebook/app  reviews,  following  the  guidance  of  the  legal  team  to  make  this 
distinction.  We  assign  a  score  of  -1  whenever  a  practice  is  grey  zone/illegal  and  a 
score  of  zero  whenever  a  practice  is  acceptable.  The  practices  and  scores  are 
includes  the  proportion  of 
described 
website/apps/Facebook  pages  in  our  sample  with  practice-specific  grey  zone/illegal 
practice, both in total across all categories and for each B2C category (note that A&V 
stands for Audio and Video Streaming). 

in  Figure  38  below.  Figure  38  also 

93 We bundle together “grey zone/dubious” and “illegal” practices because following guidance from the legal 
experts  in  the  team.  According  to  them,  we  have  for  some  practices  we  have  “dubious”  situations 
because  we  cannot  establish  whether  the  practice  can  be  considered  illegal  as  such  classification  will 
depend on the circumstances, many of which can only be established after signing up, or in connection 
with other practices.  

176 

 
 
                                           
 
Figure 38:  Procedure used to establish what constitutes a grey zone/dubious or illegal practice94,95 

Practice 

Grey zone/Dubious or illegal practice? 

Whether the trader’s contact details below can be found: 

  Dubious/illegal,  if  1  contact  detail  is  ‘Not 

Proportion of grey 
zone/dubious or 
illegal practices 

 

trader’s name 
email address 
telephone number 

 
 
  postal address 

found’ or ‘Unclear’ 

  Acceptable, if otherwise 

Whether the trader’s country matches the country 
reviewed 

  Dubious/illegal if ‘Unclear’ what the trader’s 

country is’  

  Acceptable, if otherwise 

  Dubious/illegal if ‘Unclear’ 
  Not poor practice, if otherwise 

email 

address 

Consumer’s personal details required: 
 
  other accounts' login 
 
  phone 
  name 
  gender 
  birth date 
age group 
 
city & country 
 
sexual orientation 
skin type 

 
 

94 Legend of charts: Health supl = Health supplements; Dating = Dating services; Cosmetics = Cosmetics; Backup = Claud-based backup services; A&V = Audio and video 

streaming 

95 The results exclude duplicate brands 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Practice 

Grey zone/Dubious or illegal practice? 

Proportion of grey 
zone/dubious or 
illegal practices 

income 
 
  profession 
employment status 
 
company's name 
 
  website registration 
 
  other 
  nothing 
  unclear 
Whether trader can pass consumer’s details on to others 

social security # or ID# or VAT# 

sample to be collected 

The free trial consists of: 
  posted sample 
 
  Time unlimited, service limited 
  Time limited, service limited 
  Time limited, service unlimited 
  Winning a prize 
 
 

Free or discounted in addition to a purchase 
Free but with publicity 
Free if sign up for receiving newsletter or promotional 

 

  Dubious/illegal  if,  ‘Yes,  trader  can  pass 
details  on  to  others  without  consumers’ 
consent’ or ‘Unclear’ 
  Acceptable, if otherwise 

  Dubious/illegal practice if, ‘Unclear’  
  Acceptable practice, if otherwise 

 
 
 
 
Practice 

Grey zone/Dubious or illegal practice? 

Proportion of grey 
zone/dubious or 
illegal practices 

 

materials 
Free if a product review is provided 
Freemium 

Free/gratis 

Join a community 

 
  Unclear 
  Other 
The free trial is promoted as: 
 
  Zero cost 
  Very cheap 
  Discount/free with purchase 
  Gift 
 
  Unclear 
  Other 
‘Discounting’ practices: 
  Skip or shorten the trial into a paid subscription 
 
  Engage others in paid subscription 
  Subscribe for longer periods 
  Subscribe for great quantities 
 
 
  None 
  Unclear 
  Other 
Charges during the “free trial”: 
  Charges beyond a service threshold 
  Very low' charges 
  Back charges 
  Other 

Provide additional personal information 
Provide product review 

Provide credit card details 

  Dubious/illegal if, ‘Unclear’ 
  Acceptable practice, if otherwise 

  Dubious/illegal  practice 

if 

‘Unclear’  or 

‘Provide credit card details’ 
  Acceptable practice, if otherwise 

  Dubious/illegal practice if, ‘Charges during 
the free trial’ [any type] & ‘free trial was 
promoted as free / gratis /zero cost/ very 
cheap/gift’ 

  Acceptable practice, if otherwise 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Practice 

Grey zone/Dubious or illegal practice? 

Proportion of grey 
zone/dubious or 
illegal practices 

How charges during the “free trial” occur: 
  Credit card automatically charged 
  Request for payment 
  Unclear 
  Other 

Engagement in a paid subscription after the “free trial”: 
  Automatically without reminder 
  Automatically but with a reminder 
  Explicit consent needed 
  Unsolicited packages 
  Unclear 
  Other 
How subscription charges occur:  
  Credit card automatically charged  
  Request for payment 
  Choice  among  options  is  available  (PayPal,  credit 

  Dubious/illegal  practice 

‘Unclear’  or 
‘Credit  card  automatically  charged’  & 
‘charges during the free trial’ [any type] 

if, 

  Acceptable practice, if otherwise 

  Dubious/illegal  practice  if,  ‘Automatically 
without  reminder’,  ‘Unsolicited  packages  ‘, 
‘Unclear’ 

  Acceptable practice, if otherwise 

  Dubious/illegal  practice 

‘Unclear’  or 
‘Credit  card  automatically  charged’  & 
‘information about charges’ is hard to find / 
hard to understand / not available 

if, 

card, invoice,…) 

  Acceptable practice, if otherwise 

  Unclear 
  Other 
Clarity of the information about charges (during the “free 
trial” or subscription): 

Provided in a clear and comprehensive manner 

 
  Hard to find 
  Hard to understand 
 

Information not available 

  Dubious/Illegal practice if, ‘Hard to find’, or 
‘Hard  to  understand’  or  ‘Information  not 
available’ 

  Acceptable practice, if otherwise 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Practice 

Grey zone/Dubious or illegal practice? 

Proportion of grey 
zone/dubious or 
illegal practices 

Clarity about start and end dates of the “free trial”:  

Provided in a clear and comprehensive manner 

 
  Hard to find 
  Hard to understand 
 

Information not available 

Clarity about duration of the paid subscription:  

Provided in a clear and comprehensive manner 

 
  Hard to find 
  Hard to understand 
 

Information not available 

Clarity of terms and conditions: 
  Very clear 
Fairly clear 
 
  Unclear 
  Not provided at all 

Framing-in strategies to engage consumers in the “free 
trial”: 

Limited time left 
Limited quantities left 

 
 
  Testimonials 
  Benefits claims 
  Use of known brands to endorse credibility 
  None 
  Other 

  Dubious/Illegal practice if, ‘Hard to find’, or 
‘Hard  to  understand’  or  ‘Information  not 
available’ 

  Acceptable practice, if otherwise 

  Dubious/Illegal practice if, ‘Hard to find’, or 
‘Hard  to  understand’  or  ‘Information  not 
available’ 

  Acceptable practice, if otherwise 

  Dubious/Illegal practice if, ‘Unclear’, or ‘Not 

provided at all’ 

  Acceptable practice, if otherwise 

  Dubious/illegal  practice  if  any  framing-in 

strategy is used  

  Acceptable practice, if ‘None’ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Practice 

Grey zone/Dubious or illegal practice? 

When can consumers withdraw from the “free trial”:  
  At any time 
  Within a time window shorter than the free trial 
  After some time but before the end of the free trial 
  Only at the end of the free trial 
  Unclear 
  Other 

  Dubious/illegal  practice  if,  ‘Unclear’  or  ’ 
Within a time window shorter than the free 
trial’ 

  Acceptable practice, if otherwise 

Proportion of grey 
zone/dubious or 
illegal practices 

Pay a cancelation fee 

Procedure to withdraw from the “free trial”: 
  Use the unsubscribe feature 
  Email the trader 
  Call the trader 
  Return the package sealed 
  Return the package even if open 
 
  Unclear 
  Other 
When can consumers withdraw from the paid 
subscription:  
  At any time with refund 
  At any time without refund 
  Only after a certain number of payments 
  At the end of the subscription 
 
  Unclear 
  Other 
What is necessary to withdraw from the paid 
subscription: 
  Use the unsubscribe feature 
  Email the trader 
  Call the trader 
  Return the package sealed 
  Return the package even if open 

In time to stop the next delivery 

  Dubious/illegal  practice 

the 
package  sealed’,  or  ‘Pay  a  cancelation  fee’, 
or ‘Unclear’ or ‘Other’ 

‘Return 

if 

  Acceptable practice, if otherwise 

  Dubious/illegal  practice  if  ‘Only  after  a 
certain number of payments’ or ‘Unclear’ 

  Acceptable practice, if otherwise 

  Dubious/illegal  practice 

the 
package  sealed’,  or  ‘Pay  a  cancelation  fee’, 
or ‘Unclear’, or ‘Other’ 

‘Return 

if 

  Acceptable practice, if otherwise 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Practice 

Pay a cancelation fee 

 
  Unclear 
  Other 

Grey zone/Dubious or illegal practice? 

Proportion of grey 
zone/dubious or 
illegal practices 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Step  2:  Using  an  overall  ‘grey  zone/illegal  practice  index’  to  assess  the 
extent to which problematic practices are associated with “free trials” 

In  Step  2  we  add  the  practice-specific  scores  to  obtain  an  overall  ‘grey  zone/illegal 
practice  index’,  which  varies  from  a  minimum  of  -21  (when  the  trial  shows  a  grey 
zone/illegal  practice  in  each  of  the  21  practices  checked)  and  a  maximum  of  zero 
(when the trial shows an acceptable practice in each of the 21 practices checked). This 
index  gives  us  the  total  number  of  grey  zone/illegal  practices  observed  for  each 
sampled  trial.  As  such,  the  index  synthesises  the  performance  of  each  sampled 
website/app/Facebook page across all practices. This aggregate performance measure 
is  then  used  to  inform  the  data  analysis,  e.g.  to  relate  the  trial’s  performance,  as 
measured by the number of grey zone/illegal practices in place with its popularity, as 
measured by the Alexa score. 

Figure 39 shows the frequency distribution of the ‘grey zone/illegal practice index’ for 
all  websites/apps/Facebook  pages  screened  combined  and  broken  down  by  B2C 
category. It shows the percentage of trials screened that scored each possible score in 
the  ‘grey  zone/illegal  practice  index’  spectrum.  The  results  indicate  that  none  of  the 
websites/apps/Facebook  pages  screened  score  below  -16  in  the  overall  ‘practice 
index’. In other words, none of the screenings conducted has the lowest possible score 
in  all  or  nearly  all  practices  reviewed.  Also,  there  are  few  trials  with no  grey  zone  or 
illegal  practices,  although  the  results  show  that  the  distribution  is  skewed  towards 
index  scores 
in  between  10  and  zero  and  a  substantial  proportion  of 
websites/apps/Facebook pages screened have a smaller number of grey zone or illegal 
practices  (and  this  pattern  is  more  prevalent  for  dating  services,  cloud-backup 
services and audio & video streaming than in health supplements or cosmetics).  

We  note  that  one  major  limitation  of  an  overall  ‘grey  zone/illegal  practice  index’ 
calculated  in  this  way  is  its  non-weighting  nature.  By  simply  adding  the  individual 
scores  without  assigning  specific  weights  to  each  one  we  are  implicitly  attributing 
equal  weights  to  all  practices,  and  this  is  unlikely  to  be  the  case.  It  is  beyond  the 
scope  of  the  study  to  identify  weights  for  the  different  grey  zone  or  illegal  practices, 
although  this  could  be  done  through  focus  groups  or  interviews  with  experts.  The 
current  measure  simply  provides  information  on  the  size  of  the  potential  problem, 
across the different practices. 

184 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 39:  Distribution  of  trials  screened  across  the  ‘grey  zone/illegal  practices 

spectrum, overall and by B2C category 

185 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

186 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

11.2.5.

  Association between severity of grey zone/illegal practices and popularity 

The  results  show  that  the  association  between  severity  of  grey  zone/illegal  practices 
(as  measured  by  the  number  of  problematic  practices  occurring)  and  popularity  is 
inverse  (or  negative),  suggesting  that  more  popular  websites  are  less  likely  to  have 
grey  zone/illegal  practices  which  is  in  the  expected  direction,  but  only  statistically 
significant for two of the five B2C categories and for all categories combined.  

Specifically,  out  of  the  five  B2C  categories,  only  dating  services  and  cloud-based 
backup services show a statistically significant inverse association between severity of 
grey  zone/illegal  ‘free’  trial  practices  and  popularity.  Also,  although  statistically 
significant, the strength of these associations is only mild at best. Cloud-based backup 
shows  the  strongest  (inverse)  association  but  only  at  a  mild  -0.35.  The  (inverse) 
association  is  weaker  for  dating  services  at  -0.16.  Still,  this  result  suggests  that  in 
both  dating  services  and  cloud-based  backup,  severe  grey  zone/illegal  ‘free’  trial 
practices  are  more  likely  to  happen  among  less  popular  websites/apps/Facebook 
pages. The inverse is also true: in these two B2C categories acceptable practices are 
more  likely  among  popular  websites/apps/Facebook  pages.  Note  that  this  finding  is 
particularly valid in the cloud-based backup category, given its stronger correlation (-
0.35), more so than in the dating services category, which has a weaker correlation (-
0.16). 

In  the  health  supplements,  cosmetics  and  dating  services  categories,  the  association 
between severity of grey zone/illegal ‘free’ trial practices and popularity is statistically 
insignificant (i.e. the association is not statistically different from zero). This suggests 
that in health supplements, cosmetics and audio & video streaming ‘free’ trials, severe 
grey  zone/illegal  practices  can  be  found  among  popular  as  much  as  among  less 
popular websites/apps/Facebook pages. The opposite is equally true: acceptable ‘free’ 
trial  practices  can  be  found  among  popular  as  much  as  among  less  popular 
websites/apps/Facebook pages in any of these three B2C categories. 

The  following  figures  show  the  association  between  severity  of  grey  zone/illegal 
practices,  as  measured  by  the  grey  zone/illegal  practice  index,  and  the  popularity  of 
the  website/apps/Facebook  page,  as  measured  by  the  Alexa  global  rank.  We  present 
the  results  for  all  unique  brands  combined,  as  well  as  for  each  B2C  category.  We 
measure the association between severity of grey zone/illegal practices and popularity 
by  the  Pearson’s  linear  correlation  coefficient  (r).96  We  report  the  actual  correlation 
value, as well as its graphical representation, in the form of a fitted trend line. A flat 
trend  line  corresponds  to  a  correlation  equal  (or  close  to)  zero,  which  indicates  no 
association between the two variables. A steep trend line corresponds to a correlation 
close  to  1  (if  ascending)  of  -1  (if  descending),  which  indicates  a  strong  association 
between  the  two  variables.  The  cases  for  which  the  association  is  statistically 
significant  (at  the  0.05  significance  level)  are  framed  in  dark  blue  and  the 
corresponding correlation coefficient is signalled with an asterisk. 

96   Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient ranges from -1 to +1. The closest the correlation coefficient is to -
1 (or +1), the stronger the association. The closer the correlation coefficient is to zero the weaker the 
association. 

187 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 40:  Association  between  grey  zone/illegal  practice  severity  and  popularity  by 

B2C category 
All unique brands 

Health supplements unique brands 

Cosmetics unique brands 

Dating services unique brands 

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Cloud-based backup unique brands 

Audio & video streaming 

Legend:  

(1) Measured by the ‘grey zone/illegal practice index’ 
(2) Measured by the Alexa global rank score 
(*) Correlation statistically significant the the p=0.05 significance level 

One  third  (10  out  of  30)  of  the  countries  shows  a  statistically  significant  inverse 
association  between  grey  zone/illegal  ‘free’  trial  practices  and  popularity  of 
websites/apps/Facebook  pages  across  the  B2C  categories  considered  in  this  study. 
These  are  shown  in  dark  colour  and  they  are:  Cyprus  (Pearson  linear  correlation 
coefficient  of  -0.47),  Finland  (-0.46),  Hungary  (-0.45),  Norway  (-0.44),  Germany  (-
0.43),  UK  (-0.40)  Sweden  (-0.38),  Romania  (-0.37),  Poland  (-0.37)  and  France  (-
0.34).  This  suggests  that  in  any  of  these  10  countries,  more  grey  zone/illegal  ‘free’ 
trial  practices  across  the  B2C  categories  analysed  tend  to  occur  among  less  popular 
websites/apps/Facebook  pages.  The  opposite  also  holds:  a  greater  number  of 
acceptable practices tend to occur in more popular websites/apps/Facebook pages. 

In any of the other 20 countries the association between severity of grey zone/illegal 
‘free’ trial practices and popularity is statistically insignificant (i.e. there is no evidence 
that such association is different from zero, or non-existent). This suggests that in any 
of  these  countries  greater  numbers  of  grey  zone/illegal  ‘free’  trial  practices  can  be 
found  among  more  popular  as  much  as  among  less  popular  websites/apps/Facebook 
pages. 

Similar results are presented when all B2C categories are combined and broken down 
by countries.97  

97   We  do  not  report  the  results  breakdown  by  country  and  by  B2C  category.  This  is  because  the  small 
number  of  observations  for  many  country-B2C  category  combinations  and/or  the  highly  skewed 
distribution of many of these sub-samples would make such results not statistically representative of the 
population.  

189 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 41:  Association  between  grey  zone/illegal  practice  severity  and  popularity  by 

country 

Country-level correlation between severity of grey zone/illegal practices and 
popularity(1) 

Legend:  Pearson  linear  correlation.  Severity  of  grey  zone/illegal  practices  is  measured  by  the  ‘grey 
zone/illegal  practice  index’.  Popularity  is  measured  by  the  Alexa  global  rank  score  (*)  Correlation 
statistically significant the the p=0.05 significance level. Countries witn significant correlations are in  dark 
blue 

11.2.6.

  Prevailing grey zone/illegal practices 

In  this  section  we  look  in  detail  at  each  of  the  21  practices  for  which  we  collected 
primary  data  to  determine  which  of  them  are  particularly  prevalent  in  each  B2C 
category. 

Figure  42  shows  the  proportion  of  websites/apps/Facebook  pages  with  grey 
zone/illegal  practices  in  each  of  the  21  practices  broken  down  by  B2C  category.  We 
present  the  best  estimate  proportion  of  poor  practice  (in  dark  blue),  as  well  as  the 
corresponding margin of error, in the form of confidence interval.98  

98   The  charts  should  be  read  as  follows.  Take  for  example  the  case  of  Health  supplements,  practice  1  – 
trader’s 
the  health  supplements 
is 
websites/apps/Facebook pages operating in the EU28+2 countries have ‘poor’ trader’s ID practices and 
we are 95 per cent confident that true proportion falls between 6 and 16 per cent. 

identification.  Our  best  estimate 

that  11  percent  of 

190 

 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 42:  Prevalence of poor practices by B2C category 

Health supplements unique brands 

Cosmetics unique brands 

191 

 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Dating services unique brands 

Cloud-based backup unique brands 

192 

 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Audio & video streaming 

All unique brands 

Legend: The ‘free’ trial practices in the X-axis read as follows: 
1 – Trader’s contacts can be found; 2 – Trader’s country matches the country reviewed; 3 – Consumer’s 
personal details required to sign up; 4 – Whether trader can pass on consumer’s details on to others; 5 – 
Credit card charges needed to sign up; 6 – What the ‘free’ trial consists of; 7 – How the ‘free’ trial is 
promoted; 8 – Discounting practices; 9 – Type of charges during the ‘free’ trial; 10 – How charges during 
the ‘free trial occur; 11 – How engagement in paid subscription after ‘free’ trial occurs; 12 – How 
subscription charges occur; 13 – Clarity of info about charges; 14 – Clarity about start and end dates; 15 – 
clarity about duration of paid subscription; 16 – clarity of terms and conditions; 17 – framing-in strategies; 
18 – When consumers can withdraw from ‘free’ trial; 19 – Procedure to withdraw from ‘free’ trial; 20 – 
When consumers can withdraw from paid subscription; 21 – Procedure to withdraw from paid subscription. 
Cloud-based backup services show the lowest number of practices with high incidence 
of grey zone/illegal practices. Passing consumer’s personal details on to others has the 
highest incidence of grey zone/illegal practices in this B2C category (incident of 50%). 
Interestingly, passing consumer’s personal details on to others has a high incidence of 

193 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

grey zone/illegal practices in all B2C categories, with incidences ranging from 71% in 
cosmetics to 50% in cloud-based backup services.  

Audio  &  video  streaming  shows  two  practices  with  an  incidence  of  grey  zone/illegal 
practices  above  50  percent,  passing  consumer’s  personal  details  (61%)  and  trader´s 
id (64%). Trader’s id has a high incidence of grey zone/illegal practices across all B2C 
categories,  with  incidences  ranging  from  75%  in  dating  services  and  45%  in  cloud-
based backup services. 

In  dating  services  framing-in  strategies  to  prompt  consumers  to  sign  up  for  the  free 
trial  (54%)  joins  the  trader’s  id  and  passing  on  consumer’s  details  as  the  three 
practices  with  higher  incidence  of  grey  zone/illegal  practices.  Framing-in  also  has  a 
high  incidence  of  grey  zone/illegal  practices  in  health  supplements  (72%)  where  it 
ranks first; and in cosmetics where it ranks third with an incidence of 58%. Framing-in 
strategies  in  cloud-based  backup  services  has  a  lower  incidence  of  grey  zone/illegal 
practices at 41% and even lower in audio & video streaming at 19%.  

Health  supplements  and  cosmetics  have  more  practices  with  high  incidence  of  grey 
zone/illegal practices than any other B2C categories. In both categories six (out of 21) 
practices have an incidence of grey zone/illegal practices above 50%, which happen to 
be  the  same  practices  in  both  B2C  categories.  In  addition  to  passing  consumer’s 
details  on  to  others  (71%  in  cosmetics;  69%  in  health  supplements),  framing-in 
strategies (72% in health supplements and 58% in cosmetics) and trader’s id (61% in 
health  supplements;  51%  in  cosmetics)  already  discussed,  the  three  other  practices 
with  high  incidence  of  grey  zone/illegal  practices  in  both  health  supplements  and 
cosmetics  are:  (1)  clarity  about  duration  of  paid  subscription  (56%  in  health 
supplements; 51% in cosmetics); (2) procedure to withdraw from ‘free’ trial (59% in 
cosmetics;  55%  in  health  supplements),and  (3)  procedure  to  withdraw  from  paid 
subscription (56% in both).  

In contrast, health supplements and cosmetics have the smallest number of practices 
with low  incidence  of  grey  zone/illegal  practices.  Only  three  out  of  21  practices  have 
an  incidence  below  10%  and  they  are  the  same  in  both  categories:  (1)  Consumer’s 
personal details required signing up (9% in health supplements; 4% in cosmetics); (2) 
what  the  ‘free’  trial  consists  of  (7%  in  health  supplements  and  3%  in  cosmetics  and 
(3) how the ‘free’ trial is promoted (3% in health supplements and 2% in cosmetics).  

Cloud-based  backup  services  and  audio  &  video  streaming  show  more  practices  with 
low  incidence  of  grey  zone/illegal  practices  than  health  supplements  and  cosmetics. 
Five practices have an incidence between 8 and 1 percent in these two categories, the 
same  three  has  in  health  supplements  and  cosmetics  and  two  additional  ones:  (1) 
Type of charges during the ‘free’ trial and (2) How charges during the ‘free trial occur.  

Dating  services  has  the  highest  number  of  practices  with  low  incidence  of  grey 
zone/illegal practices among the B2C categories considered. In total, eight practices or 
nearly two-fifths of the 21 practices considered had an incidence varying from 9% and 
2%. They include the three low-incidence practices shown in health supplements and 
cosmetics and five additional ones: (1) credit card charges needed to sign up; (2) type 
of charges during the ‘free’ trial; (3) how charges during the ‘free trial occur, (4) how 
engagement  in  paid  subscription  after  ‘free’  trial  occurs;  and  (5)  how  subscription 
charges occur. 

11.3.  Additional information 

Bibliography for desk research  

194 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Studies and reports 

  Report  by  the  ECCs  of  Denmark,  Finland,  Norway  and  Sweden  (March  2013), 
Too  good  to  be  true?  It  probably  is!  Unfair  Commercial  Practices  and 
Unsolicited 
Goods,  
http://www.konsumenteuropa.se/globalassets/rapporter/too_good_to_be_true
_it_probably_is_unfair_commercial_practices_-and_unsolicited_goods.pdf  
  Report by the ECCs of Norway, Czech Republic, Germany and Sweden (2013), 
Chargeback  in  the  EU/EEA:  A  solution  to  get  your  money  back  when  a  trader 
does not respect your consumer rights.  
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/docs/chargeback_report_en.pdf 

  ECC-Net (2014), Fraud in cross-border e-commerce 

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/docs/ecc-report-cross-border-e-
commerce_en.pdf 

  ECC-Net  annual  report  (2013),  Help  and  advice  on  your  purchases  abroad, 

http://www.consumer.ee/public/report_ecc-net_2013_en.pdf 

  Europe  Economics:  An  analysis  of  the  issue  of  consumer  detriment  and  the 
most  appropriate  methodologies  to  estimate  it,  Final  Report  for  DG  SANCO 
(2007)  
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_evidence/market_studies/docs/stud
y_consumer_detriment.pdf  

  Handbook on consumer detriment (2007)   

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_evidence/market_studies/docs/hand
book_consumer-detriment.pdf  

Scientific articles and books 

  Al-Debei,  M.  M.,  &  Avison,  D.  (2010).  Developing  a  unified  framework  of  the 
business model concept. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(3), 359-
376.  

  Anderson,  C.  (2013).  Free:  How  today's  smartest  businesses  profit  by  giving 

something for nothing. Random House. 

  Becher,  S.I.  (2007).  Behavioral  Science  and  Consumer  Standard  Form 

Contract.” Louisiana Law Review. Volume 61. Number 1. Fall 2007. 

  Becher,  S.  I.,  &  Zarsky,  T.  (2008).  E-contract  doctrine  2.0:  standard  form 
participation.  Michigan 

contracting 
age 
Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 14(2) 

online 

user 

the 

of 

in 

  Bikhchandani, Sushil; Hirshleifer, David; Welch, Ivo (1992). "A Theory of Fads, 
Fashion,  Custom,  and  Cultural  Change  as  Informational  Cascades".  Journal  of 
Political Economy 100 (5): 992–1026. 

  Burkhart,  T.,  Krumeich,  J.,  Werth,  D.,  &  Loos,  P.  (2011).  Analyzing  the 

business model concept—a comprehensive classification of literature.  

  Collins,  L.M.,  Lanza,  S.T.  (2013).  Latent  class  and  latent  transition  analysis: 
With  applications  in  the  social,  behavioral,  and  health  sciences.  John  Wiley  & 
Sons. 

  Coursaris,  Constantinos  &  Khaled  Hassanein  (2002),  Understanding  m-
commerce:  a  consumer-centric  model.  Quartely  Journal  of  Electronic 
Commerce, Vol. 3, pp. 247-272 

  Goodman,  L.A.  (1974).  Exploratory  latent  structure  analysis  using  both 

identifiable and unidentifiable models. Biometrika 61, 215–231. 

  Hoffman, D. A. (2005). Best Puffery Article Ever, The. Iowa L. Rev., 91, 1395. 

Chicago 

  Hoofnagle,  C.J.,  and  Jan  Whittington.  2014.  Free:  Accounting  for  the  Costs  of 

the Internet’s Most Popular Price. 61 UCLA L. REV. 606 (2014) 

  Kahneman,  D.  and  Tversky,  A.  (1984).  "Choices,  Values,  and  Frames". 

American Psychologist 39 (4): 341–350. 

195 

 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

  Krumeich,  J.,  T.  Burkhart,  D.  Werth,  and  P.  Loos  (2012).  Towards  a 
Component-based Description of Business Models: A State-of-the-Art Analysis. 
Americas  Conference  on  Information  Systems  (AMCIS  2012)  Proceedings. 
Paper 19. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2012/proceedings/EBusiness/ 

  Laochumnanvanit,  K.,  &  Bednall,  D.  H.  (2005).  Consumers'  evaluation  of  free 

service trial offers. Academy of marketing science review, 11, 1-13. 

  McCutcheon, A.L. (1987). Latent class analysis. Sage. 
  Murdock,  B.B.,  Jr.  (1962)  The  Serial  Position  Effect  of  Free  Recall,  Journal  of 

Experimental Psychology, 64, 482-488. 

  Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying business models: 
Origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of the association 
for Information Systems, 16(1), 1.  

  Osterwalder,  A.,  Yves  Pigneur,  Alan  Smith,  and  470  practitioners  from  45 

countries. (2010). Business Model Generation, Wiley published 

  Pallier, Gerry, et al. (2002) "The role of individual differences in the accuracy of 

confidence judgments." The Journal of General Psychology 129.3  

  Peel, D., MacLahlan, G.(2000). Finite mixture models. JohnWiley Sons N. Y. 
  Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). "Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: 
Mechanisms  of  selective  accessibility".  Journal  of  Personality  and  Social 
Psychology, 73(3), 437-446. 

  Thaler,  Richard  H.;  Sunstein,  Cass  R.  (2008).  Nudge:  Improving  Decisions 

about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press 

  Turban, E., Lee, J., Warketing, M. and Chung, M. (2002) Electronic Commerce: 
A  Managerial  Perspective,  Prenctice  Hall  and  Kalakota,  R.  and  Robinson,  M. 
(2002) M-business: the Race to Mobility, McGraw Hill 

  Tversky  and  Kahneman  (1974)  Judgment  under  Uncertainty:  Heuristics  and 
Biases.  Science,  New  Series,  Vol.  185,  No.  4157.  (Sep.  27,  1974),  pp.  1124-
1131. 

  Zott,  C.,  Amit,  R.,  &  Massa,  L.  (2011).  The  business  model:  recent 
developments and future research. Journal of management, 37(4), 1019-1042.  

Articles on websites 

  Article  in  PCWorld  (10/9/2012):  How  ‘free  trial’  web  offers  can  be  credit  card 
2014 

traps. 
http://www.pcworld.com/article/261227/the_truth_about_free_trials.html  
  Blog post (10/01/2014): JustFab.com: Not So Fab After All. Retrieved 13 April 
2014 http://www.literallydarling.com/blog/2014/01/10/justfab-not-so-fab/ 

Retrieved 

April 

13 

  ECC-Net  Internet 

fraud  &  scams  webpage.  Retrieved  14  April  2014 

 

http://www.europe-consommateurs.eu/en/consumer-topics/online-
shopping/internet-fraud-scams/ 
International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network, News (webpage. 
Retrieved  14  April  2014  http://icpen.org/news/united-kingdom-oft-takes-
action-against-online-subscription-operator.html 

  ECC  Denmark  (9/7/2014):  The  Danish  Consumer  Ombudsman  is  ready  to 
14/04/2015 

intervene 
http://www.consumereurope.dk/E-Commerce/Sample-packages/Subscription-
traps 

“subscription 

Retrieved 

against 

traps. 

  ECC  Finland  (18/6/2014):  Marketing  of  Glucomannan  and  Vihrea  kahvi 
slimming  products  is  misleading.  Retrieved  14/4/2015  http://www2.ecc.fi/en-
GB/news-/from-european-consumer-centre/marketing-of-glucomannan-and-
vihrea-kahvi-slimming-products-is-misleading-2 

  Article in Women’sHealth (7/10/2013): Special Report: Lose 7lns/week of belly 
fat  with  this  tip  featured  in  the  Dr.  Oz  show.  Exclusive  offer  for  readers. 
Retrieved 
http://consumerist.com/2014/05/19/sellers-of-pure-
green-coffee-accused-of-faking-news-sites-creating-bogus-reporter/ 

14/4/2015 

196 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

  ECC  Finland  (20/11/2014):  Save  money  while  shopping  for  gifts  -  tips  for 
trouble-free  shopping  online.  Retrieved  14/4/2015  http://www2.ecc.fi/en-
GB/news-/from-european-consumer-centre/marketing-of-glucomannan-and-
vihreakahvi-slimming-products-is-misleading-2 

  Citizens advice bureau (21/8/2014): Slimming pill swindles at an all-time high. 
14/4/2015 

Retrieved 
http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/pressoffice/press_index/press_201408
21.htm 

  DietPill-Reviews.co.uk:  Raspberry  ketone: 

free 

trial  scams.  Retrieved 

14/4/2015 http://dietpill-reviews.co.uk/raspberry-ketone-free trial-scams/ 
  Diet Pills Watchdog: Raspberry ketone UK free trial scam  – Watchdog reports. 
Retrieved  14/4/2015  http://www.dietpillswatchdog.com/raspberry-ketone-UK-
free trials-scam-watchdog-reports/ 

  Slideshare post by Dominique Levin, CMO, Totango: How to boost sales with a 
free  trial  model.  Retrieved  14/4/2015  http://www.slideshare.net/totango/how-
to-boost-sales-with-a-free trial-model 

  Slideshare  post  by  Netflix,  Netflix  marketing  plan.  Retrieved  14/4/2015 

http://www.slideshare.net/evelyneringia/netflix-markeitn 

  Zuora  Academy  by  Joe  Andrews:  Innovative  subscription  pricing  strategies. 
https://www.zuora.com/academy/guides/innovative-

14/4/2015 

Retrieved 
subscription-pricing-strategies/ 

  The Telegraph (4/3/2015): Watchdog bans misleading Amazon Prime ‘free trial’ 
14/4/2015 

ad. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-
bills/11448724/Watchdog-bans-Amazon-Prime-free trial-advert.html 

Tetrieved 

  BBC  News  (11/2/2013):  Northern  Ireland  people  warned  of  slimming  trial 
scams.  Retrieved  14/4/2015  http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-
21411139 

  Cass  Sunstein 

(2012)  speaking  at 

the  Cambridge  Forum  Lecture: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rewo7dPiRyU&feature=youtu.be  

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring  
  http://psychologydictionary.org/primacy-effect/  
  Article in Die Welt (26/08/2013): Das große Comeback der Abofallen-Betrüger  

http://www.welt.de/finanzen/verbraucher/article131573141/Das-grosse-
Comeback-der-Abofallen-Betrueger.html  

  European Consumer Centre France   

http://www.europe-consommateurs.eu/en/consumer-topics/online-
shopping/internet-fraud-scams/  

  Watchlist (AT): alert “Facebook-Betrug” 

http://www.watchlist-internet.at/facebook-betrug/facebook-angeblicher-
pound500-amazon-gutschein-fuehrt-introjaner-falle/  

  Consumentenbond (NL): alert for Lyko Smoke: 

http://www.consumentenbond.nl/actueel/nieuws/2014/betaal-dure-zending-
lyk-smoke-niet/  

  Watchlist (AT): alert for “Abzocke-Websites” 

http://www.watchlist-

internet.at/abo-fallen/bekannte-abzocke-websites-auf-einen-blick/  

  Autorita  Garante  della 

concorrenza  et  del  mercato 

(IT),  2012: 

http://www.agcm.it/stampa/news/5841-ps7444-internet-antitrust-sanziona-
estesa-limited-con-un-milione-emezzo-di-multe-per-pratiche-commerciali-
scorrette-del-sito-wwwwitalia-programminet.html  

  Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband (DE): http://www.vzbv.de/12067.htm  
 

International 
consumer  protection  and  Enforcement  Network,  News 
21/12/2011,  United  Kingdom  -  OFT  takes  action  against  online  subscription 
operator : 
http://icpen.org/news/united-kingdom-oft-takes-action-against-online-
subscription-operator.html  

197 

 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

  European 

Information 

Society 

Institute 

(SK): 

http://www.eisionline.org/index.php/projekty-m/ochrana-spotrebitela-

m/57-amicus-60-eurove-faktury  

  Finnish  Competition  and  Consumer  Authority  (2014):  Finnish  Consumer 
Ombudsman’s Newsletter:  Police  asked  to  investigate  claims  of  misleading 
marketing practices   
http://www.anpdm.com/article/41455B477245425A457446415F4571/1335143
9/2038871  

  Wilde Beuger Solmecke Rechtsanwälte (14/08/2013): :  https://www.wbs-

law.de/internetrecht/jw-handelssysteme-abzocke-urteil-des-lg-leipzig-liegt-im-
volltext-vor-44439/  

  ECC  Finland  (20/11/2014):  Save  money  while  shopping  for  gifts  -  tips  for 

trouble-free shopping online  
european-consumer-centre/marketing-of-glucomannan-and-vihreakahvi-
slimming-products-is-misleading-2  

http://www2.ecc.fi/en-GB/news-/from-

  ECC Belgium: Brochure Datingsites: grote liefde of groot bedrog? 

http://www.eccbelgie.be/datingsites-grote-liefde-of-groot-bedrog-s70371.htm  
  ECC Denmark: The Danish Consumer Ombudsman is ready to intervene against 
traps"  http://www.consumereurope.dk/E-Commerce/Sample-

"subscription 
packages/Subscription-traps  

  Which? Consumer Rights: Provides letter to  cancel a contract after a  free trial 

period 
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/action/letter-to-cancel-a-contract-
after-a-free trial-period  

  Que Choisir? (28/11/2013): Remises et Réductions - Abonnés contre leur gré   

http://www.quechoisir.org/commerce/methode-de-vente-abus/actualite-
remises-et-reductions-abonnes-contre-leur-gre  

  Watchlist (AT): (06/06/2013) So können Sie sich vor Abo-Fallen schützen 
http://www.watchlist-internet.at/abo-fallen/so-koennen-sie-sich-vor-abo-
fallen-schuetzen/  
Internet  Ombudsman  (Austria)  (2015),  annual  report:  Internet  Ombudsmann 
Jahresbericht 2014    
http://www.ombudsmann.at/schlichtung.php/cat/8/aid/367/title/Internet_Omb
udsmann_Jahresbericht_2014  

 

  Blog  post  (10/07/2009):  50  Business  Models  Based  on  Free  Retrieved  on  3 
August  2015:  http://tbmdb.blogspot.com/2009/07/50-business-models-built-
on-free.html 

  European Commission: (1/06/2015) European Consumer Centres. Retrieved on 
2015: 

of 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/solving_consumer_disputes/non-
judicial_redress/ecc-net/index_en.htm  

August 

3 

Legislation 

  Directive  97/7/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  May 

1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts    
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31997L0007  

  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 
2000  on  certain  legal  aspects  of  information  society  services,  in  particular 
electronic commerce, in the Internal Market  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1427982036722&uri=CELEX:32000L0031  

  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 
2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy 
in  the  electronic  communications  sector:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1416305794857&uri=CELEX:02002L0058-20091219  

198 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 
2005  concerning  unfair  business-to-consumer  commercial  practices  in  the 
internal market: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/NOT/?uri=CELEX:32005L0029&qid=1427977094633  

  Directive  2007/64/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13 

November 2007 on payment services in the internal market:  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1416305745373&uri=CELEX:02007L0064-20091207  
  Directive  2011/83/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25 

October 2011 on consumer rights:   
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1427976984829&uri=CELEX:32011L0083  

  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  655/2013  of  10  July  2013  laying  down 
common  criteria  for  the  justification  of  claims  used  in  relation  to  cosmetic 
products: 
http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1416305683260&uri=CELEX:32013R0655  

  Regulation  (EC)  No  1223/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council 

of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1427977370838&uri=CELEX:32009R1223  

  Regulation  (EC)  No  1924/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council 

of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods:    
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1416305518573&uri=CELEX:32006R1924  

  Regulation  (EC)  No  1924/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council 

of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1416305518573&uri=CELEX:32006R1924  

  Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council 
of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for 
the  enforcement  of  consumer  protection  laws  (the  Regulation  on  consumer 
protection cooperation): 
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2004R2006:20130301:
EN:PDF  

  See also relevant opinions and best-practice recommendations from the Art.29 
Working party in relation to e.g. behavioural advertising (2/2010, 16/2011) 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-
recommendation/index_en.htm  

Sampling protocol for websites and apps  

Website Reviews 

Websites were reviewed across the EU28 member states, plus Iceland and Norway. All 
reviews  were  undertaken  by  native  speakers  from  the  country.  A  larger  number  of 
websites were reviewed in larger countries.  

To  undertake  the  review,  search  terms  were  developed  for  each  product  to  identify 
websites  that  offer  free  trials,  test  packages,  and  cheap  test  products/services.  A 
range  of  terms  was  included  for  each  area,  to  allow  some  flexibility  in  each  country. 
Reviewers were advised that the search terms were indicative and could be amended, 
if it was felt to be appropriate. The search terms were agreed with the client prior to 
commencement of the search procedure.  

199 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

In general, search terms followed the following format:  

“free trial” + product OR offer 

“free sample” + product OR offer 

“free trial period” 

“free membership” 

The search strings use notation (+, “”) that work with the Google search engine. The 
tables below set out the proposed search terms for each product. 

Table 23:   Search  terms  for  identifying  websites  offering  free  trials  for  weight  loss 

supplements and health supplements 

Optional additional terms 

Form of the offer 

Characteristics of the 
product 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 

“weight loss” 
“diet” 
“detox” 
“slimming” 
“health” 
“muscle” 
“vitamins” 
“protein” 

“free sample” 
“free trial” 
“free subscription” 
“subscribe for free” 
“free welcome” 
“trial” 
“test” 
“try out” 
“offer” 
“gratis” 
“win a free 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
subscription” 
12. 
13. 
Table 24:   Search terms for identifying websites offering free trials for cosmetics and 

“product” 
“supplement” 
“pill” 
“capsule” 
“cure” 
“treatment” 
“therapy” 
“green coffee” 
omega-3” 

“win a membership” 
“win a test package” 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 

“omega-6” 

10. 

11. 

[name of country] 

anti-ageing products 

Form of the offer 

“free sample” 
“free trial” 
“free subscription” 
“subscribe for free” 
“free welcome” 
“trial” 
“test” 
“try out” 
“offer” 
“gratis” 
“win a free 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
subscription” 
12. 
13. 

“win a membership” 
“win a test package” 

Characteristics of the 
product 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 

“ageing” 
“anti-ageing” 
“skin” OR “skin care” 
“beauty” 
“wrinkle” 
“make-up” 

Optional additional terms 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 

“product” 
“cream” 
“serum” 
“oil” 
 “ketone” 
“melatonin” 
“glucosamine” 
[name of country] 

200 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Table 25:   Search  terms  for  identifying  websites  offering  free  trials  for  dating 

services 

Form of the offer 

Optional additional terms 

Characteristics of the 
product 
1. 
dating” 
2. 
singles” 
3. 
“online personals” 
“partner” 

“dating” OR “online 

“singles” OR “online 

1. [name of country] 

“free sample” 
“free trial” 
“free subscription” 
“subscribe for free” 
“free welcome” 
“trial” 
“test” 
“try out” 
“offer” 
“gratis” 
“win a free 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
subscription” 
12. 
“win a test package” 
Table 26:   Search  terms  for  identifying  websites  offering  free  trials  for  cloud-based 

“win a membership” 

“personals” OR 

“backup” OR “data 

Characteristics of the 
product 
1. 
backup” 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 

 “computer backup” 
“cloud backup” 
“file” 
“photo storage” 

Optional additional terms 

1. “service” 
2. “storage” 
3. [name of country] 

back-up services 

Form of the offer 

“free sample” 
“free trial” 
“free subscription” 
“subscribe for free” 
“free welcome” 
“trial” 
“test” 
“try out” 
“offer” 
“gratis” 
“win a free 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
subscription” 
12. 
13. 

“win a membership” 
“win a test package” 

Table 27:   Search  terms  for  identifying  websites  offering  free  trials  for  audio  and 

visual streaming services 

Form of the offer 

“free sample” 
“free trial” 
“free subscription” 
“subscribe for free” 
“free welcome” 
“trial” 
“test” 
“try out” 
“offer” 
“gratis” 
“win a free 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
subscription” 
12. 
13. 

“win a membership” 
“win a test package” 

“video” + 

“movies” + 

Characteristics of the 
product 
1. 
“streaming” 
2. 
“streaming” 
3. 
“streaming” 
“film” 
4. 
“download” 
5. 
“listen online” 
6. 
“watch online” 
7. 
“view online” 
8. 

 “music” + 

Optional additional terms 

1. online 
2. subscription 
3. [name of country] 

201 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

In terms of searching, website reviewers were instructed to:  

  Use VPN to simulate the location (e.g. Hola)  
  Use the Firefox web browser, because it collects the least amount of data and it 

works with Hola  

  Clear your previous search history from the computer 
  Log in through country Google/Bing (e.g. google.fr; bing.de) 
  Create a dummy email account (e.g. Hotmail https://login.live.com): 

o  The profiles will represent a fictional individual of 40 years (median age 

of the European population)99  

o  Living in the capital city of the country researched 
o  Half the profiles were specified as male and half as female, these were 

split across countries 

It is noteworthy that no credit card details were provided in any of the searches, and 
this  may  have  limited  our  search  somewhat.  However,  websites  that  required  credit 
cards for searching purposes can be covered in the mystery shopping exercise. 

Reviewers were also instructed that: 

  The review should not include websites or blogs that review or collate free trial 

offers, but only websites that offer the trials themselves. 

  The review would include both misleading and bona fide practices. 
 

It  was  possible  that  some  websites/social  media  pages  would  be  reviewed 
multiple  times  across  countries  (because  each  country  search  could  identify 
popular websites/social media pages outside of the country). We accepted that 
this was a limitation of the methodology, on the basis that it would not be clear 
where to include websites that are observed across different countries and that 
this  approach  provides  an  indication  of  the  popularity  of  specific  websites 
across countries. 

  When  quantifying  whether  information  was  provided  in  a  “clear”  manner, 
reviewers  should  base  their  judgement  in  in  accordance  to  the  Consumer 
Rights Directive as follows: 

[“2.  If  a  distance  contract  to  be  concluded  by  electronic  means  places  the 
consumer under an obligation to pay, the trader shall make the consumer aware in 
a clear and prominent manner, and directly before the consumer places his order, 
of  the  information  provided  for  in  points  (a),  (e),  (o)  and  (p)  of  Article  6(1).  The 
trader  shall  ensure  that  the  consumer,  when  placing  his  order,  explicitly 
acknowledges  that  the  order  implies  an  obligation  to  pay.  If  placing  an  order 
entails activating a button or a similar function, the button or similar function shall 
be labelled in an easily legible manner only with the words ‘order with obligation to 
pay’ or a corresponding unambiguous formulation indicating that placing the order 
entails  an  obligation  to  pay  the  trader.  If  the  trader  has  not  complied  with  this 
subparagraph, the consumer shall not be bound by the contract or order.”] 

Reviewers  were  also  asked 
rank  score 
(http://www.alexa.com/) of the websites so that they could select a mixture of higher- 
and lower-scores websites. 

the  Alexa  global 

look  at 

to 

Reviewers were asked to fill in a questionnaire, collecting detailed information on each 
website, including the Alexa rank score. 

99 Eurostat data 

202 

 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Reviewing social media sites 

Social  media  checking  focussed  on  Facebook,  given  its  high  level  of  popularity  in 
Europe100.  In  each  country  we  set  up  country-specific  Facebook  accounts,  mirroring 
the  fictional  profiles  used  to  create  the  dummy  country-specific  e-mail  accounts. 
Searches  were  conducted  using  the  terms  developed  for  the  webpage  search. 
Reviewers were asked to provide up to four observations across four of the five areas, 
depending on the availability of results, using the following methodology: 

  Researchers were instructed to “like” 5 to 10 pages related to the four product 
categories that specifically mention ‘free’ or ‘free trial’ or ‘free sample’. 
  For  each  of  the  four  products,  they  were  asked  to  review  the  first  page  that 
showed  up  mentioning  ‘free’  or  ‘free  trial’  or  ‘free  sample’  by  looking  for 
detailed  information  under  the  ‘About’  tab.  It  was  acknowledged  that  some 
searches would be directed to a website address to obtain more information on 
the free trial. This was judged to be fine.  

  The  review  could  include  pop-up  and  banner  ads  presented  through  the 
platform,  as  long  as  they  fit  within  the  product  categories,  mention  ‘free’  or 
‘free trial’ or ‘free sample’, and the total reviews was not greater than four.  
  Reviewers  were  instructed  that  it  was  possible  that  the  Facebook  search  in  a 
language other than English may not return enough results. In this case, they 
were  asked  to  conduct  an  additional  search  with  the  VPN  connection  for  the 
country  in  question  but  using  English  terms.  The  rationale  is  that  Facebook 
users  would  try  searches  in  their  native  language  first  and  if  they  fail  to  find 
results they will search in English, which is the most popular common language 
on Facebook. 

Reviewing apps 

Lastly, we reviewed app stores to identify whether free trial apps are available for the 
different services, and what information was presented with these. We did not propose 
to cover all of the countries, on the basis that many of the same apps will exist across 
countries.  Overall,  we  were  aiming  to  obtain  approximately  20  observations  of  apps 
across the five product categories, four to five in each product category. In the case of 
apps, the reviewers were instructed to: 

  Log 

in 

through 

the  app  stores  (store.apple.com)  and  Google  Play 

(https://play.google.com/store).  

  Use  the  search  function  on  these  sites  to  identify  apps  that  fell  within  one, 
many  or  each  of  the  areas  under  study  (weight  loss  supplements/  health 
supplements;  cosmetics/anti-ageing;  dating;  cloud-based  backup;  audio  and 
video streaming services) 

  Review  the  introduction  to  the  app,  the  terms  and  conditions,  and  other 
necessary  documents,  resources  or  links  relating  to  the  service  that  are 
provided in Google Play/ the Apple Store about the apps identified 

  Conduct the searches for the five product categories.  It  was noted that it was 
possible that some of these areas under study would not yield relevant results 
in the app stores, and that the majority of these were likely to be in the English 
language. 

  When reviewing the number of app downloads (Question 17): in the event that 
a  download  interval  is  given  (e.g.  between  10,000,000  and  50,000,000 
downloads) please capture the upper limit of the download interval. 

100  In  Western  Europe,  social  media  use  is  dominated  by  Facebook  in  Western  Europe,  with  37  countries 
accounting for around 19% of the platform’s total global use (when the population accounts for less than 
8%  of  the  work’s  population),  see  http://wearesocial.net/blog/2014/02/social-digital-mobile-europe-
2014/ 

203 

 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Reviewers  were  also  asked  to  capture  the  number  of  app  downloads  (Question  17), 
and  in  the  event  that  a  download  interval  is  given  (e.g.  between  10,000,000  and 
50,000,000 downloads) to capture the upper limit of the download interval. 

Performance of websites on the criteria 

This  section  describes  a  statistical  analysis  developed  to  classify  the  websites  that 
were screened into 3 classes, namely “probably bona fide”; “probably misleading”, and 
undefinable. The result of this analysis is a categorisation of websites, and was part of 
the preparations for the mystery shopping, where we want to evaluate both websites 
that  seem  to  be  misleading,  and  websites  that  are  at  first  sight  ok.  This  statistical 
analysis  is  not  a  legal  analysis.  Websites  that  are  likely  bona  fide  according  to  the 
statistical analysis may still infringe a legal provision and thus be misleading.  

204 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

12.  Annex mystery shopping exercise 

12.1.  Introduction 

The objective of the mystery shopping is to assess the real life experience of ordering 
or subscribing for online free trials. By addressing the different stages of the process, 
the mystery shopping is able to pinpoint the issues consumers who order or subscribe 
for  a  free  trial  experience  during  the  stage  of  ordering,  returning  or  cancelling  and 
after returning or cancelling the free offer. 

The  mystery  shoppers  were  briefed  to  sign  up  to  a  specific  free  trial  and  then  to 
attempt cancellation of  the subscription before  the end of the trial period. They were 
asked  to  complete  a  questionnaire  for  each  transaction,  collecting  the  following 
information:  

  Was  it  possible  to  access  the  terms  and  conditions  before  signing  up  for  the 

trial 

  Details of the process involved in signing up for the trial, including the personal 

and financial data requested, how the order was confirmed, etc. 

  Whether the trial/test product/service was received 
 

If and how the supplier could be contacted for the cancellation or in case of the 
consumer/mystery shopper did not receive the free trial on time. 

  How the right of withdrawal was applied 
  Whether they experienced an increase in targeted advertising after responding 

to the offer 

  Whether the free trial costs more than initially announced 

The sample included 326 online free trials distributed as follows: 

  Country:  around  40  webshops  per  country  across  8  EU  Member  States, 
selected  to  be  representative  of  Europe  as  a  whole  in  terms  of  EU15/EU13 
membership and geographical region, average income and legal and consumer 
context 

  Product / service category: equally spread across the 4 categories under study 
  Type  of  websites:  equally  split  according  by  those  involving  subscription  traps 
and  those  that  do  not  (according  to  the  evidence  collected  in  the  website 
screening analysis) 

205 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 43:  Selected countries in which mystery shopping exercise took place 

In  the  set-up  for  the  mystery  shopping,  we  intended  to  use  the  websites  that  were 
assessed  during  the  website  screening  analysis.  Of  the  websites  assessed  in  this 
study, 279 websites were withheld for the mystery shopping part of the research. To 
complete the list of 320 websites for this exercise, websites were then selected using 
the same protocol as in website analysis. 

The  websites  were  assessed  in  the  period  May-June  2015.  8  weeks  later  when  the 
mystery  shopping  exercise  commenced  (August  2015),  25%  of  these  identified  free 
trials were no longer available. As a consequence, these websites were replaced using 
the same protocol as used in the website analysis. In the assessment of the free trial 
offers  that  were  no  longer  online,  we  noticed  a  high  proportion  of  offers  through 
Facebook pop-ups (24%). 

During  the  mystery  shopping  exercise,  another  22%  of  the  websites  needed 
replacement.  The  most  important  reasons  for  this  were  payment  restrictions  (35%) 
and border restrictions (26%). In total 116 initial websites were replaced.  

Also  the  short  period  of  being  online  persisted  in  35%  of  the  cases  during  the 
replacement  of  the  websites.  Facebook  pages  were  especially  challenging,  as  43%  of 
the  free  trials  offered  via  Facebook  pages  were  short-lived  pop-up  offers  that  were 
gone at the time of the start of the mystery shopping exercise (pages were tested by 
GfK no later than 5 days before the mystery shopper started the exercise).  

Data were collected by mystery shoppers at each of the following three stages: 

1.  Order/sign up stage 

2.  Cancellation stage 

3.  Post cancellation stage 

206 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

12.2.  Results: Order/Sign up stage 

The  first  stage  covers  the  process  of  ordering  or  subscribing  for  a  free  trial.  The 
mystery  shoppers  were  presented  with  10  free  trials  to  assess.  During  the  ordering 
stage,  a  proportion  of  mystery  shoppers  encountered  problems  when  ordering  or 
subscribing for a free trial: 

1.  Payment  restrictions:  mystery  shoppers  faced  restrictions  when  using  credit 
cards and when trying to register. The credit cards that mystery shoppers used 
were  sometimes  rejected.  In  other  cases,  mystery  shoppers  lacked  the 
information needed to register, order or subscribe for a free trial.  

2.  Disappearing/Reappearing  offers:  although  the  mystery  shoppers  started  the 
exercise  using  links  that  were  verified,  the  offer  was  sometimes  no  longer 
available when the mystery  shopper tried to order  or sign in for the free trial. 
In some cases the free trial was no longer offered, in other cases the link to the 
offer was taken offline.  

3.  Border  restrictions:  mystery  shoppers  encountered  limitations  in  delivery  and 
shipping  costs.  In  some  cases  the  free  trial  could  not  be  delivered  in  the 
country  of  the  mystery  shopper,  in  other  cases  the  shipping  costs  were  more 
than 10€ which was the maximum amount that mystery shoppers could spend 
on a free trial.  

These three categories of problems are illustrated below. 

Figure 44:  3  categories  of  problems  encountered  when  ordering  or  subscribing  for  a 

free trial 

Note: N = 116 rejected websites 

207 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 45:  Subcategories of problems encountered when ordering or subscribing for a 

free trial 

Note: N = 116 rejected websites 

In 22% of the cases, problems occurred with websites in Sweden. This is in contrast to 
Germany, were issues occurred only in 4% of the cases. The sample size per country 
was too small (N≤27) to make any further statements. The problems per country are 
reported in the following figure. 

Figure 46:  Percentage of problems at sign up/order stage encountered per country 

Note: N = 116 rejected websites 

208 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

The majority of problems at sign up/order stage happened when the free trial related 
to products: 72% of the problems encountered with the order/sign up stage related to 
products,  28%  of  the  problems  encountered  with  the  order/sign  up  stage  related  to 
services.  About  35%  of  the  problems  encountered  with  products  were  associated  to 
disappearing/reappearing  offers  and  34%  were  associated  to  payment  restrictions. 
Less than one third of the problems could be explained by border restrictions (28%). 
Services on the other hand were more likely to have problems at the sign up relating 
to the payment (41%) and less to other border restrictions (19%). 

Figure 47:  Types  of  problems  at  sign  up/order  stage  encountered  for  products  and 

services 

Note: N = 116 rejected websites 

More problems encountered happened with websites that offered cosmetics (39%) and 
health  supplements  (34%).  Less  problems  were  reported  relating  to  cloud-based 
backup services at the sign up / order stage (4%).  

Figure 48:  Percentage  of  problems  at  sign  up/order  stage  encountered  per  product 

group 

Note: N = 116 rejected websites 

The sample size was too small for each product category (N≤27) to make any further 
statements in more detail. 

209 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

12.2.1.

  Assessment of the free trial  

Mystery shoppers were asked to complete a questionnaire designed to assess different 
aspects of the free trial (see additional information section). 

The average time spent ordering or subscribing for a free trial was 11 minutes: more 
than half of the mystery shoppers spent 9 minutes or less on the order or subscription 
and about 10% of the mystery shoppers spent more than twice the average time. The 
type of product or service did not influence the time taken to order or subscribe for a 
free trial. 

The following figure summarises the mystery shoppers’ assessments of the free trials 
at  this  stage.  Only  a  small  proportion  of  5%  involved  unsubstantiated  claims. 
Approximately 9 out of 10 websites gave clear information on the supplier of the free 
trial, on the product or service offered for free and on the cost for the consumer when 
ordering a free product or subscribing for a free service.  

Compared  to  the  websites  from  the  initial  website  screening,  the  results  of  the 
mystery  shopper  exercise  could  differ  because  of  the  replacement  of  websites  that 
could  not  be  used  (see  previous  section  with  the  different  kind  of  problems 
encountered  at  the  first  order  /  sign  up  stage).  58%  of  the  websites  used  for  the 
mystery shopping were also used in the website screening. 

About three quarters of the websites offering a free trial provided clear information on 
the terms and conditions related to the free trial and the delivery time of the offer. 

For the information on the product, the cost, the terms and conditions and the delivery 
time,  a  large  majority  of  the  assessed  websites  offering  free  trials  complied  with  the 
mystery shoppers’ expectations. 

Less  clear  were  the  conditions  how  personal  details  were  treated  and  especially 
information on what mystery shoppers were supposed to do when they choose not to 
purchase the product/service after the trial. 

40%  of  the  websites  offering  a  free  trial  used  messages  to  urge  consumers  to 
purchase their other (payable) products. 

210 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 49 Assessment of the free trial offer (proportion of yes)  

Note: Q1.1 Is the description of the product/service on the website clear? Yes/No If no, please explain. Q1.2 
Are the conditions of the trial offer clearly explained? Yes/No If no, please explain. Q1.3 Was it clear who is 
offering the trial offer? Yes/No If no, please explain. Q1.4 Was it clear who is offering the trial offer? Yes/No 
If no, please explain. Q1.5 Did you notice any messages urging you to purchase the product service? Yes/No 
If no, please explain. Q1.6 Was  it clear when the trial offer product/service would be delivered? Yes/No If 
no,  please  explain.  Q1.7  Were  the  terms  &  conditions  of  the  trial  offer  clearly  explained  on  the  website? 
Yes/No If no, please explain. Q1.8 Was it clearly explained what to do if you would choose not to purchase 
the product/service after the trial? Yes/No If no, please explain. Q1.9 Was it clear how your personal details 
would be treated? Yes/No If no, please explain. 1.10 Were any claims made that were unauthorised or were 
missing evidence? Yes/No If yes, please explain. N = 326 

Going more into detail on the ordering/subscription phase, we distinguish the following 
confirmation stages mystery shoppers went through to get the free trial offer: 

First, most websites (86%) asked to confirm shoppers’ personal information. 

Secondly,  about  one  quarter  of  the  websites  (23%)  asked  to  confirm  the  price 
mentioned  for  receiving  the  free  trial.  7%  of  the  free  trials  were  not  completely  free 
(including the delivery cost). Also when no cost was charged, 1 in 5 mystery shoppers 
had to confirm this ‘zero cost’. When there was a cost charged, again, 1 in 5 mystery 
shoppers had to confirm this cost. 

Next to the confirmation of the personal information and the cost of the free trial, 34% 
of  the  mystery  shoppers  had  to  accept  the  general  conditions  of  the  free  trial 
(including the information on the duration of the subscription) and 30% of the mystery 
shoppers  had  to  agree  with  the  terms  and  conditions  connected  to  the  free  trial 
(including the right of withdrawal). 
After the registration phase, 56% of the mystery shoppers received a confirmation on 
screen and one third of the mystery shoppers received a confirmation by e-mail. 37% 
of the mystery shoppers did not receive any confirmation on screen or by e-mail. 

For the subscription of services, the free trial was activated immediately after signing 
up or within 24 hours for 92% of the tested subscriptions. 

211 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 50:  Sign-up procedure 

Note: Q4.1 Did you need to confirm the information given? 4.2. Did you need to confirm the price? 4.3. Was 
there  a  tickbox  to  confirm  the  terms  and  conditions?  4.4.  Did  you  need  to  agree  with  the  terms  and 
conditions  to  register? 4.5. Did  you  notice  a  confirmation screen  after you ordered  the free  trial? 4.6. Did 
you receive a confirmation mail after you ordered the free trial? N = 318 websites  

12.2.2.

  Personal information 

Two out of five mystery shoppers were not able to find information on what happened 
with  the  personal  information  they  provided  to  order  a  free  trial.  When  we  take  a 
closer  look  at  the  personal  information  that  was  requested,  the  information  to  be 
provided was strongly linked to the service or product ordered.  

Not surprisingly, an address was more often required when ordering tangible products 
than when subscribing to services. 98% of the free trials did not require the consumer 
to pay shipping costs. Nevertheless, in 41% of the cases related to  tangible products 
and in 20% of the cases related to services, payment details were required. 
Gender  and  age  were  two  types  of  personal  information  that  was  requested  more 
often  when  signing  up  for  a  free  service  than  when  ordering  a  free  tangible  product. 
Income  was  required  for  only  1%  of  products  and  10%  of  services.  Many  of  these 
differences were accounted for by the specific service of dating sites. 

212 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Table 28 Personal information asked per product group (% asked) 

Gender 
Age 
Address 
Income information 
Payment details 
None of the above 
Note: Q3 Which information were you asked for? N = 326 

Services 
50,6% 
47,6% 
29,0% 
10,0% 
20,8% 
33,3% 

Goods 
24,2% 
24,2% 
86,3% 
1,1% 
41,1% 
9,5% 

Table 29 Personal information asked per product group (% asked) 

Cloud-
based 
services 

Audio and 
video 
streaming 
services 
27,6% 
24,1% 
25,9% 
0,0% 

9,5% 
8,1% 
18,9% 
1,4% 

Gender 
Age 
Address 
Income 
information 
Payment details 
None 
above 
Note: Q3 Which information were you asked for? N = 326 

16,2% 
61,2% 

44,8% 
41,4% 

the 

of 

94,9% 
90,9% 
38,4% 
22,2% 

10,1% 
7,1% 

Dating 
services 

Cosmetics 

Health 
supplements 

27,3% 
27,3% 
84,1% 
2,3% 

40,9% 
9,1% 

21,6% 
21,6% 
88,2% 
0,0% 

41,2% 
9,8% 

12.2.3.

  Costs 

As the mystery shoppers were assessing ‘free’ offers, the announced costs for ordering 
the  product  or  subscribing  for  a  service  should  cost  0  euro.  Indeed,  98%  of  the  free 
trials  were  free  (excluding  the  delivery  cost).  Although  most  of  the  free  trials  were 
without  any  charge,  in  22%  of  the  cases,  credit  card  information  from  the  mystery 
shoppers was requested. 

Taking  the  delivery  costs  into  account,  the  ‘delivery’  of  online  services  was  self-
evidently free, but the same was the case for most tangible products. Nine out of ten 
ordered  free  products  and  were  delivered  free  of  any  charge.  Only  1%  of  the  free 
trials costed more than initially foreseen. 

213 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 51 Example of costs 

12.2.4.

  Delivery date 

For three out of four free trials, a delivery date was given (and half of the offers were 
delivered  by  the  promised  delivery  date).  27%  of  the  free  trials  (across  all  product 
categories)  did  not  give  a  delivery  date.  93%  of  the  ordered  services  (91%  when 
considering  dating  services)  were  received  within  24  hours.  30%  of  the  ordered 
products were received within 5 days. 

Mystery  shoppers  were  asked  to  contact  the  provider  if  they  did  not  receive  their 
service  within  24  hours  or  products  within  5  days.  In  27%  of  the  cases,  mystery 
shoppers found it was not possible to contact the provider. In 37% of the cases, there 
was an online contact form. And in 31% of the cases, shoppers sent an e-mail. 

214 

 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 52 Example of an online contact form 

Figure 53 Announcement of delivery date 

Note: Q7 Was a date of delivery for the free trial announced? N = 326 

12.3.  Results: Cancellation stage 

During the cancellation stage, the mystery shoppers were asked to return the product 
or to cancel the subscription. Mystery shoppers experienced the following problems: 

 

 

In  case  of  subscribing  to  a  service,  8%  did  not  receive  the  service  within  24 
hours 
In case of ordering a product, 70% did not receive the product within 5 days 

Furthermore: 

 

In 26% of the cases, there was no cancellation/deactivation procedure to stop 
the subscription to the service/good 

215 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

If  not  delivered  on  time  or  not  at  all,  the  mystery  shopper  was  asked  to  contact  the 
supplier. In most cases (68%) the mystery shopper was able to find an e-mail address 
or  an  online  contact  form.  27%  of  the  mystery  shoppers  could  not  find  any  contact 
information on the website.  

54% of the mystery shoppers attempting to contact a supplier did not succeed. If they 
succeeded in contacting the supplier, they mostly had used e-mail (47%) or an online 
contact  form  (44%).  Cancellation  took  5  minutes  or  less  for  58%  of  the  mystery 
shoppers, 8% of the mystery shoppers reported that the cancellation stage took more 
than 15 minutes. 

In  general,  the  satisfaction  with  the  cancellation  process  is  moderate  when  asked  to 
the mystery shoppers. 

Figure 54 Example of cancellation 

216 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

12.4.  Results: Post cancellation stage 

For  the  post  cancellation  stage,  the  mystery  shoppers  were  asked  to  follow-up  the 
contact information they provided during the registration or order (e-mail, telephone, 
post address) for unsolicited communication. A proportion of websites caused:  

  Spam mail (6%) 
  Targeted advertisement (3%) 
  Nuisance phone calls (2%) 
  Spam postal mail (0.3%) 

Figure 55 Example of spam mail 

Figure 56 Example of targeted advertising 

217 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

12.5.  Conclusion 

In general, the findings of the mystery shopping exercise implied that online free trials 
were  not  misleading  consumers  or  causing  any  great  detriment.  They  tended  to  be 
reasonably  clearly  described  and  communicated  and  it  was  usually  clear  to  the 
mystery shoppers, who was providing the offer. The process of signing up was not too 
time consuming and did not often require unnecessary personal information. However, 
better  information  could  be  given  by  many  sites  on  issues  such  as  how  personal 
information would be used, how to cancel and what to do if mystery shoppers should 
decide not to purchase after signing up to the trial.  

Delivery  was  prompt  in  many  cases,  though  often,  particularly  for  products,  delivery 
time  was  not  given  at  the  time  of  sign-up  and  where  it  was  given,  was  not  always 
adhered to. 
Cancellation  was  not  difficult  or  time  consuming  in  most  cases  and  communication 
with  the  provider  was  usually  possible  and  responsive.  Only  small  proportions  of  the 
websites  caused  an  increase  in  unsolicited  communications  following  the  free  trial  or 
subscription (though it should be noted that this type of communication could build up 
over time as details could be potentially sold on). 

12.6.  Additional information 

Briefing document 

Background 

  We  have  been  commissioned  to  carry  out  assessments  of  the  Consumer 

Experience when signing up to an online free trial 

  The  object  of  this  exercise  is  to  assess  the  offering  of  free  trials  online  in  the 
following  sectors:  food  and  health  supplements,  cosmetics,  dating  sites  and 
digital services. We are aiming to assess the process of signing up to such free 
trials  and  then  unsubscribing  before  the  end  of  the  trial  period,  in  order  to 
assess the ease  of this process and to  check whether  companies are adhering 
to the law in this regard. 
It  is  important  that  you  complete  the  questionnaire  as  soon  as  possible  after 
you have completed your mystery shopping exercise 

 

  Estimated Length of Assessment 
  Essential: Filling in the assessment sheet will take approximately 30 minutes, 
broken  down  as  15  minutes  to  describe  the  sign-up  stage,  10  minutes  to 
describe the process of unsubscribing and 5 minutes to end the evaluation. 

This does not include the time taken to sign-up and unsubscribe from the website. The 
time taken for this process will vary according to website. 

  Fees 
  The standard fee for this assessment is €xx 
  Use the financial details provided by GfK to subscribe or order free trial. 
  Your  standard  fee  includes  any  other  expenses  you  incur  whilst  undertaking 

this assessment.  

  GfK  reserves  the  right  to  withhold  payment  unless  this  assessment  is  carried 

out in exact accordance with these instructions. 

Shopper Profile 

218 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Mystery shoppers: 

  Age range: 18+. 
  Aim for a mix of mystery shopper profiles by age and gender 
  must not be friends/family members of the websites that they shall assess 

It is essential that this shopper profile is strictly adhered to. 

  Data Entry Requirements 
  All data is to be entered into the online portal. 
  You must keep your paperwork for 3 months after submitting the report. 

Typing Rules 

  You must use normal typing rules  – begin each sentence with a capital letter, 

write in full sentences, and do not type in capitals throughout your report. 

  Use ‘I’ rather than ‘we’. 
  Use the past tense. 
  Ensure your comments do not contradict your questionnaire responses. 
  When  entering  your  results,  please  ensure  your  comments  are  written  in  full 

sentences with correct grammar. 

  Comments  that  are  poorly  written  may  delay  payment  as  we  may  need  to 

clarify details.  

Contact Information 

 

If you have any queries please contact X: 

Briefing Notes 

Before conducting the assessment:  

  Please  make  sure  you  fully  understand  the  questionnaire,  briefing  notes,  and 

know exactly what you are to purchase and when. 

  The mystery shopper will need to first undertake and pass the training.  
  It is important to note that the free trial will likely ask you for financial 
information,  such  as  a  credit  card  number.  Please  use  the  financial 
details from GfK and not your personal credit card! 

Questionnaires for the mystery shopping  

Sign up Questionnaire 
First,  please  navigate  to  the  weblink  provided  to  you  in  your  sample  document. 
Answer the following questions about the test-offer and website. 
1.  Date you signed up to the free trial? (dd/mm/yyyy) 

Start time sign up for the trial 
End time sign up for the trial 

How much time did you spend (in minutes) on the sign up process? 

Please provide screenshot to illustrate the free trial  
Your gender 
What is your age category 

1.1. 

Is the description of the product/service on the website clear? Yes/No   
If no, please explain.  

1.2.  Are the conditions of the trial offer clearly explained? Yes/No 

If no, please explain 

1.3.  Was it clear who is offering the trial offer? Yes/No 

If no, please explain 

1.4.  Was it clear what the costs for you for the trial offer would be? Yes/No   

If no, please explain 

1.5.  Did you notice any messages urging you to purchase the product service? 

Yes/No 

219 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

If no, please explain 

1.6.  Was it clear when the trial offer product/service would be delivered? 

If no, please explain 

1.7.  Were the terms & conditions of the trial offer clearly explained on the website? 

Yes/No 
If no, please explain 

1.8.  Was it clearly explained what to do if you would choose not to purchase the 

product/service after the trial? Yes/No 
If no, please explain 

1.9.  Was it clear how your personal details would be treated? Yes/No 

If no, please explain 

1.10.  Were any claims made that were unauthorised or were missing evidence? 

Yes/No 
If yes, please explain 

3.  Which of the following information was requested from you when you were signing 

up to the free trial? 

o  Gender 
o  Age 
o  Address 
o 
o  Payment details 
o  None of above 

Income information 

4.  Upload printscreens of each step taken in the sign up procedure (as many 

printscreens as necessary)  

4.1.  Did you need to confirm the information given? 
4.2.  Did you need to confirm the price? 
4.3.  Was there a tickbox to confirm the terms and conditions? 
4.4.  Did you need to agree with the terms and conditions to register? 
4.5.  Did you notice a confirmation screen after you ordered the free trial? 
4.6.  Did you receive a confirmation mail after you ordered the free trial? 
5.  What  is  the  amount  of  cost  to  be  for  the  trial  (exclude  delivery  cost)?  Please 

provide printscreen to illustrate this. 

6.  If  tangible  good,  What  is  the  amount  of  delivery  costs  to  be  for  delivery  of  the 

trial? Please provide printscreen to illustrate this. 

7.  Was  a  date  of  delivery  for  the  free  trial  announced?  (If  for  a  product/service  you 

get access immediately, this question should be answered “yes”) 
If  ‘Yes’,  What  is  the  announced  delivery  time  for  the  free  trial?  (If  for  you  get 
immediate access, enter the date you signed up for the trial) 

Cancellation questionnaire 
9.  Did you receive the product / service that you requested within 24h (if service)/5d 

(if good)?  
If  not  received  within  the  promised  timeline,  please  contact  the  supplier  and  ask 
for the reason for not providing the product/service.  

11.1.  (If  not  received)  In  what  way  did  you  attempt  to  contact  the  supplier  (email, 

telephone, online form etc.)?  
Please provide images (where possible) and a description of this process 

(If not received) Were you able to contact the supplier? 

12. 
10.  (If  not  received)  What  explanation  did  you  get  for  not  receiving  the  requested 
product / service? 
Please provide images (where possible) and a description of this process 
14. (If received) When did you receive the product / service?  
15. (If received)Was this timeline in accordance with that promised by the website? 
16.1.  (If received) To what extent did the product / service that you eventually 

received match what you were initially promised? Please answer on a scale 
from 0-10, where 0 means that it did not match your expectations at all and 10 
means that it matched them completely 

220 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

16.2. (If received) Please provide images (of tangible goods) and a description of the 

end product received. 

17. Was  there  a  cancellation/deactivation  procedure  to  stop  the  subscription  to  the 

service/good? 

17.1. What day did you attempt to cancel your subscription? (DD/MM/YYYY) 
17.2. Start time cancellation process 
17.3. End time cancellation process 
17.4  How much time did you spend (in minutes) on this cancellation process? 

18.1. How did you successfully contact the provider to cancel the trial? 
18.2. In what way did you attempt to cancel (email, telephone, online form etc.)?  
Please provide images (where possible) and a description of this process 

19. To what extent were you satisfied with the cancellation process? Please indicate on 
a scale  of 0-10, where  0 means completely dissatisfied and 10 means completely 
satisfied. 

21. Did you receive an official confirmation of your cancellation of the product/service 

within 5 days? 

21.1.  How many days were there between you giving notification of the cancellation 
and the official confirmation of your cancellation of the product/service? 
23. During this cancellation process, to what extent did the free trial provider put you 
under pressure to keep your subscription? Please answer on a scale from 0-10, 
where 0 means that you were put under no pressure and 10 means that you were 
put under a lot of pressure 

Post  -  cancellation  questionnaire  (End  of  evaluation  –  5  days  after 
cancellation) 
22. What day are you filling in the post-cancellation questionnaire? (DD/MM/YYYY) 
24. Following  the  completion  of  this  exercise,  which  of  the  following  have  you 

experienced? 

26.1.  Increase in spam email – if so, please describe and provide screenshots 
26.2.  Increase in nuisance phone calls – if so, please describe 
26.3.  Increase in spam postal mail – if so, please describe 
26.4.  Increase in targeted advertising, if so, please describe and provide screenshot 
26.5.  Other  problems,  if  so,  please  describe  and  provide  screenshots  (where 

possible) 

25. Did  the  trial  cost  any  more  money  than  you  were  initially  promised?  (Contact  X, 

information provided by GfK) 
If yes, please contact the supplier and ask for the reason for the extra charges.  
26.1.  In  what  way  did  you  attempt  to  contact  the  supplier  (email,  telephone,  online 

form etc.)?  

26.2  Describe how you tried to contact the supplier 

Please provide images (where possible) and a description of this process 

27. Were you able to get a reply from the supplier? 
28. What reason did the supplier give for the extra charges? 

Please provide images (where possible) and a description of this process 

221 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

13.  Annex behavioural experiment 

13.1.  Introduction 

The  other  tasks  describe  the  prevalence  of  subscription  traps,  the  tactics  used  to 
entice  consumers  to  enrol  in  subscriptions,  and  the  experiences  of  consumers.  The 
behavioural  experiment  described  in  this  annex,  takes  a  different  approach.  An 
experimental design  was used to investigate how  changes in policy might reduce the 
likelihood that consumers fall victim to subscription traps. The experiment investigated 
the  hypothesis  that  there  are  two  primary  behavioural  mechanisms  that  cause 
consumers  to  fall  victim  to  subscription  traps.  First,  consumers  may  not  realise  that 
they  are  signing  up  for  a  subscription.  Second,  they  may  realise  it  is  a  subscription, 
but are overconfident about whether they will remember to cancel during the relevant 
cancelation period. These are some of the biases that were uncovered in the literature 
review  (See  Annex  11).  The  behavioural  experiment  was  designed  to  investigate 
whether the provision of information helped to make people more aware that products 
were subscriptions. Elements were included to assess the role of overconfidence. 

10,132 respondents were recruited through the GfK online panels to take part in a 15-
minute  online  questionnaire  and  experiment.  Respondents  were  recruited  from  8 
countries  across  Europe  (Italy,  Lithuania,  Sweden,  Poland,  Bulgaria,  Netherlands, 
Germany,  and  United  Kingdom),  which  were  chosen  deliberately  to  ensure  a  sample 
representing different geographic regions of the of Member States / EEA states. Socio-
economic characteristics of the sample are discussed in more detail below.  

The  purpose  of  the  behavioural  experiment  is  to  examine  how  various  types  of 
information  disclosure  affect  the  desire  to  sign  up  for  a  free  trial,  as  well  as  the 
likelihood  of  noticing  the  subscription  fees  and  cancellation  terms.  Respondents  were 
shown  a  series  of  websites  designed  to  mimic  common  subscription  sites.  These 
websites  were  set-up  for  the  purposes  of  the  experiment  only  and  their  design  was 
informed by real websites, currently available on the internet. Three major categories 
of information disclosure were tested:  

1.  Scarcity claims (e.g., only XX packages left),  
2.  Enrol vs. buy claims (e.g., the words “order” or “enrol” were used rather than 

“buy” or “pay now”), and  

3.  Notice of subscription claims (e.g., notice that a subscription is being sold, the 
monthly  cost  of  the  subscription,  or  the  cancellation  date  to  avoid  future 
charges).  

The  baseline  treatment  was  designed  to  be  similar  to  the  typical  design  of  these 
websites.  The  first  two  treatment  categories  (Scarcity  claims,  and  Enrol  vs.  buy 
claims) were meant to test whether compliance with recent EU advertising legislation 
increases awareness of subscription traps.101 The final treatment category is meant to 
test  how  possible  new  policies  that  provide  direct  information  about  the  subscription 
characteristics may affect awareness of the trap. 

101 The terms and conditions presented on the experimental subscription websites were reviewed and edited 

by Time.lex, who provided recommendations about proper website terminology usage. 

223 

 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

The  study  examines  subscriptions  for  both  physical  products  and  digital  services, 
across seven hypothetical items. The physical products consist of health supplements 
and  cosmetics/beauty  products.  The  digital  services  consist  of  a  dating  website,  a 
digital  storage  site,  and  a  digital  streaming  site.  The  following  table  lists  all  products 
and services tested.  

Table 30 Product Categories 

Product Name 

Description 

GC Pharma- 
Garcinia  

Cambogia 

Pump-XL 
Lustera 
Aloderm 
Amora 
Freeflow 
AirTight 

Weight loss supplement 

Muscle building 
supplement 
Skin cream 
Acne treatment 
Dating 
Streaming video 
Data backup 
Weight loss supplement 

Product 
category 
Health 

Health 

Cosmetics 
Cosmetics 
Dating 
Digital 
Digital 
Health 

Physical or Digital 
product 
Physical 

Physical 

Physical 
Physical 
Digital 
Digital 
Digital 
Physical 

For physical products such as health supplements and cosmetics, the typical websites 
often obfuscate the fact that the individual is signing up for a membership. Individuals 
are led to believe that they are ordering a free sample and are entering their payment 
information  for  the  purpose  of  paying  for  shipping  and  handling.  For  digital  products 
such  as  dating  websites  and  digital  storage  sites,  where  there  is  no  shipping  and 
handling,  it  is  harder  to  have  somebody  enter  their  payment  information  without 
raising  suspicion.  The  model  typically  used  for  digital  sites  is  to  prominently  display 
the  monthly  cost  of  the  subscription  but  to  hide  the  details  associated  with  the  free 
trial,  e.g.  how  long  the  free  trial  lasts  and  the  length  of  time  the  consumer  has  in 
which  to  cancel  their  subscription.  These  different  types  of  subscription  traps  will 
require different information disclosure treatments.  

A  sample  of  two  websites,  one  depicting  a  physical  product  (GC  Pharma)  and  one 
depicting  a  digital  product  (Amora)  is  provided  in  the  following  figure.  The  product  / 
service  websites  were  modelled  heavily  on  themes  common  in  subscription  websites. 
The first page is picture heavy with a general description about the product and very 
little mention of a subscription. The second page has many of the same design themes 
as  the  first  page,  but  provides  information  about  the  subscription  and  more  details 
about  how  to  enrol  in  the  free  trial  and  complete  the  purchase.  The  sample  figures 
also indicate where the text for each of the treatments was included. 

224 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

In  total,  each  respondent  was  asked  to  view  websites  for  each  of  the  7  hypothetical 
products.  The  order  of  the  products  was  randomly  assigned.  For  each  product,  the 
respondent  was  shown  a  website  offering  a  subscription,  followed  by  a  series  of 
questions  about  that  website.  For  the  physical  products  (health  supplements  and 
cosmetics), individuals were randomly assigned to a version of the website that offers 
one of four information disclosure treatments:  

1.  baseline: where the subscription trap is hidden,  
2.  notice: a notice of subscription to the individual,  
3.  cost: a notice of the monthly cost for purchasing the subscription, and  
4.  date: a notice indicating the number of days that the trial lasts.  

For  the  digital  products  (dating,  digital  storage,  and  streaming  video  websites), 
individuals were randomly assigned to one of two information disclosure treatments:  

1.  baseline: that clearly displays the monthly cost of the product, and  
2.  date: a notice indicating the number of days that the trial lasts.  

The  following  table  provides  a  detailed  breakdown  of  how  the  information  disclosure 
treatment  varied  across  product  categories.  For  simplicity  these  treatments  are 
referred to from now as baseline, notice, cost, and date. 

Table 31 Product Categories and Information Treatments 
Notice: Buying 
a Subscription 

Baseline: 
Hidden 
Subscription 
X 
X 

X 
X 

Health (2 products) 
Cosmetics (2 
products) 
Dating (1 product) 
Digital (2 products) 

Cost: cost of 
subscription 

X 
X 

X 
X 

Date: 
how to 
cancel 
X 
X 

X 
X 

In addition to the subscription notices, two additional randomisations were conducted. 
There  was  a  scarcity  text  treatment.  For  each  product,  respondents  were  randomly 
assigned  to  see  scarcity  text  of  the  sort  “HURRY!  Only  while  supplies  last!  Trials  are 
limited!” while the remaining respondents were not shown any text. Finally, there was 
a buy vs. order treatment. In this treatment, respondents were randomly assigned to 
a  “Buy  Now”  button  displayed  on  the  website  whereas  others  were  shown  an  “Order 
Now” (physical products) or “Enrol Now” (digital products) button. 

All  respondents  view  all  seven  product  websites.  The  order  of  websites  seen  is 
randomized.  For  each  website,  respondents  are  randomized  to  receive  different 
treatments  for  the  scarcity  notice,  the  enrol  vs  by  treatment,  and  the  notice  of 

225 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

subscription  claims.  All  treatments  had  sufficiently  large  sample  sizes  to  detect 
whether the treatments affected respondents answers. Respondents were more likely 
to be assigned to some treatments, but the assignment was random. 

For  the  first  website,  participants  were  asked  whether  they  noticed  key  information 
regarding the terms and conditions of the subscription. Since this was meant as a test, 
respondents were not allowed access to the website when answering the questions.  

WEBSITE 1: 

Q1: How likely are  you  to “order a free sample”  /  “enrol for a free trial”?  (1 = 
Not at all likely; 2 = Not so likely; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Likely; 5 = Very likely) 
Q2:  Did  you  notice  any  recurring  monthly  fees  associated  with this  product?  If 
so, please list the monthly fees. 
Q3: Did you notice how long the free trial lasts? If so, please list the cancellation 
terms? 

These  questions  were  designed  to  assess  consumers’  interest  in  these  types  of 
products and whether they noticed details of the subscriptions. The first question (Q1) 
after Website 1 is a measure of purchase likelihood. Of course, the majority of people 
will not be interested in the majority of the products. The next two questions (Q2 and 
Q3) after Website 1 directly asked respondents whether they noticed details regarding 
the subscription.102  

After  exposure to the  first website and questions respondents were likely to be more 
aware  of  the  fact  that  the  experiment  was  about  subscriptions.  They  might  have 
realised  that  the  fine  print  contained  details  about  a  subscription  and  might  have 
known  where  to  look  to  identify  similar  traps  for  future  tasks.  Therefore,  for  the 
remaining  websites  2-7,  individuals  were  no  longer  asked  whether  they  noticed  the 
subscription  fees  themselves;  rather,  they  were  asked  if  they  believed  that  other 
shoppers  would  notice  the  subscription  terms.  Given  the  question  was  about  others, 
respondents  were  allowed  access  the  website  while  answering  these  questions.  A  list 
of questions that were asked following each website is provided below. 

WEBSITE 2 – WEBSITE 7: 

Q4:  What  proportion  of  typical  shoppers  will  notice  the  monthly  subscription 
fee?  
Q5: What proportion of typical shoppers will buy this product if they notice the 
monthly subscription fee?  
Q6:  What  proportion  of  typical  shoppers  will  buy  this  product  if  they  do  not 
notice the monthly subscription fee?  
Q7: What proportion of typical shoppers will notice the cancellation policy? 

These questions were designed to assess how likely others would be to notice details 
of  a  subscription  and  how  that  may  affect  purchase  decisions.  The  questions  for 
website  2  –  website  7  ask  people  to  state  their  beliefs  about  others’  behaviour,  in 
percentage  format.  Asking  about  the  proportion  allowed  us  to  assess  how  noticeable 
the  information  was,  and  to  assess  how  changes  in  information  might  affect  overall 
sales  of  these  products.  The  first  and  last  question  (Q4  and  Q7)  of  Websites  2  –  7, 
which  asked  about  how  many  notice  terms,  resemble  the  questions  (Q2  and  Q3) 
asked  to  individuals  directly  in  Website  1.  The  middle  questions  (Q5  and  Q6)  of 
Websites 2 – 7 asked respondents to estimate how often they believe others will buy 
the item if they notice and do not notice the subscription fee. Taken together, this can 
provide  an  estimate  as  to  whether  individuals  believe  that  the  websites  are 
misleading, as described in more detail below.  

102 Respondents were asked to list the monthly fee or time to cancel, but less than 10% got these questions 

correct. 

226 

 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Of course, it is likely that respondents’ responses differ based on their interpretation of 
the  question.  For  this  reason,  the  following  text  was  included  after  the  questions  for 
website 1: “For the remainder of the survey, we will show you websites for a variety of 
products.  We  will  ask  you  questions  about  other  shopper’s  behaviour.  When  asked 
about  others  behaviour,  please  consider  a  typical  shopper  of  these  sites.” 
Furthermore,  to  guide  expectations  about  what  different  percentages  imply,  the 
following  text  was  included  to  accompany  each  question:  “Almost  nobody  (0-5%), 
some  people  (6-44%),  about  half  of  the  people  (45-55%),  most  people  (56-94%), 
almost  everybody  (95-100%).”  This  text  is  often  used  when  asking  questions  about 
probabilities and proportions to help people answer the questions.103 

Prior  to  the  experimental  component,  respondents  were  asked  a  few  short  questions 
regarding their experience with the internet and the products being offered (e.g., time 
spent  on  the  internet,  interest  in  the  products/services,  and  history  of  past  purchase 
with  specific  products/services).  These  questions  were  asked  purposefully  before  any 
exposure to subscription traps so that respondents’ stated experience was not tainted 
by  the  specific items  shown.  Following  the  experimental  component,  a  few  additional 
questions were asked  of respondents regarding their key demographic characteristics 
(e.g.,  gender,  age,  education,  work-status,  income,  and  population  density  of  town). 
The  table  below  provides  basic  summary  statistics  regarding  how  the  fraction  of 
respondents  differed  in  the  demographic  characteristics  and  internet  experience.  The 
full list of questions can be found at the end of the Annex.  

Table 32 Socio-Demographic Summary Statistics 
 Characteristic 

Observations 

Raw 

Weighted 

Male 
Female 

Age: 18-25 
Age: 26-40 
Age: 41-55 
Age: 55+ 

Education: less than high school 
Education: high school grad 
Education: college grad 
Education: post-college grad 
Education: still studying 
Education: unknown 

Financial situation: very difficult 
Financial situation: fairly difficult 
Financial situation: fairly easy 
Financial situation: very easy 
Financial situation: don't know 

Country: Italy 
Country: Lithuania 
Country: Sweden 
Country: Poland 
Country: Bulgaria 
Country: Netherlands 
Country: Germany 
Country: UK 

Interest in Product: not at all interested 
Interest in Product: not so interested 
Interest in Product: neutral 

4,473 
5,659 

1,483 
3,077 
2,779 
2,793 

1,323 
3,050 
3,342 
1,532 
484 
401 

768 
3,668 
4,137 
1,157 
402 

1,252 
1,256 
1,254 
1,259 
1,257 
1,259 
1,311 
1,284 

1,539 
1,397 
1,690 

44.2% 
55.9% 

14.6% 
30.4% 
27.4% 
27.6% 

13.1% 
30.1% 
33.0% 
15.1% 
4.8% 
4.0% 

7.6% 
36.2% 
40.8% 
11.4% 
4.0% 

12.4% 
12.4% 
12.4% 
12.4% 
12.4% 
12.4% 
12.9% 
12.7% 

15.2% 
13.8% 
16.7% 

50.8% 
49.2% 

14.7% 
32.6% 
29.7% 
23.1% 

20.6% 
30.7% 
26.5% 
14.8% 
4.2% 
3.3% 

7.4% 
34.9% 
41.4% 
12.8% 
3.5% 

17.1% 
0.9% 
3.9% 
11.9% 
2.0% 
7.0% 
31.7% 
25.5% 

28.5% 
15.0% 
20.9% 

103  The  terminology  and  bin  categories  were  chosen  to  be  consistent  with  the  survey  literature,  see: 
Dominitz, Jeff, and Charles F. Manski. "Perceptions of Economic Insecurity: Evidence From the Survey of 
Economic Expectations." Public Opinion Quarterly (1997): 261-287. 

227 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

 Characteristic 
Interest in Product: interested 
Interest in Product: very interested 

Purchases Product in Past 12 months: 0 times  
Purchases Product in Past 12 months: 1 time 
Purchases Product in Past 12 months: 2 times  
Purchases Product in Past 12 months: 3+ times  

Read the terms and conditions: never 
Read the terms and conditions: sometimes 
Read the terms and conditions: most of the time 
Read the terms and conditions: always 

hours spent on the Internet (non work-related): 2 or 
fewer  
hours spent on the Internet (non work-related): 
between 2 and 4 hours 
hours spent on the Internet (non work-related): 
between 4 and 6 hours 
hours spent on the Internet (non work-related): 6 or 
more hours 

Observations 

Raw 

Weighted 

3,732 
1,774 

6,171 
1,636 
1,062 
1,263 

534 
3,233 
3,581 
2,723 

1,683 

4,981 

1,822 

1,646 

36.8% 
17.5% 

60.9% 
16.2% 
10.5% 
12.5% 

5.3% 
32.1% 
35.6% 
27.0% 

16.6% 

49.2% 

18.0% 

16.3% 

23.6% 
12.0% 

62.4% 
15.6% 
10.5% 
11.4% 

6.0% 
30.3% 
39.4% 
24.3% 

14.4% 

42.7% 

23.3% 

19.6% 

In total, 10,132 respondents took part in the behavioural experiments. Weights were 
applied on the basis of gender, age and population size. 

13.2.  Results 

The  following  table  summarises  the  results  for  each  question  described  above  across 
treatments.  For  each  question  and  each  treatment,  the  mean  response  is  reported, 
along with its standard error. For the first website only, respondents were asked about 
their  interest  in  products  and  what  they  noticed.  Note  that  where  respondents  were 
asked if they were likely to purchase the displayed product (Q1), the reported variable 
is the mean of an ordered Likert scale where “1” stands for very unlikely to enrol and 
“5”  stands  for  very  likely  to  enrol.  Furthermore,  the  proportion  of  individuals  who 
stated that they noticed that the product was  a subscription with recurring fees (Q2) 
and  the  length  of  the  cancellation  period  is  presented  (Q3).  For  the  remaining  six 
websites, respondents were asked about the proportion of others they thought would 
notice  characteristics  or  buy  products  (Q4-Q7):  in  these  cases  responses  are 
proportions  and  are  on  a  scale  from  0%  to  100%.  Responses  across  all  6  websites 
were  pooled  (6  answers  for  each  respondent).  Thus  the  effective  sample  size  is  six 
times  as  large.  This  provides  more  statistical  precision  to  detect  differences  across 
treatments.  Stars  are  used  to  indicate  a  statistically  significant  difference  in  mean 
across  treatment  effects  relative  to  the  baseline  treatment.  The  baseline  for  the 
information and scarcity treatments is no text, while the baseline for the buy vs. enrol 
treatment is the use of an enrol button rather than a buy button. 

228 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Table 33 Weighted Summary Statistics, by Treatment 

PHYSICAL PRODUCTS 

DIGITAL 
PRODUCTS 

SCARCITY TEXT 

ENROL VS. BUY 

baseline 

notice 

cost 

date 

baseline 

date 

no text 

scarcity 

enrol 

buy 

Website 1 (own behaviour) 
Q1: Desire to enrol (1= very unlikely, 5 very likely) 

Q2: Yes, noticed the monthly fees 

Q3: Yes, noticed the length of trial 

Websites 2-7 (belief of others behaviour) 

Q4: Fraction of others who will notice fee 

observations 

Q5: Fraction who would buy if they notice the fee 

Q6: Fraction who would buy if they do not notice 
the fee 

Q7: Fraction who will notice the trial length 

observations 

2.10 
(0.03) 

2.08 
(0.04) 

11.4% 
(1.05) 

13.2% 
(2.04) 

21.6% 
(1.40) 
1,553 

28.5% 
(0.48) 

23.0% 
(0.40) 

39.6% 
(0.47) 

24.9% 
(0.43) 
7,280 

20.1% 
(1.35) 
1,626 

32.5% 
*** 
(0.5) 
24.2% 
** 
(0.41) 

39.7% 
(0.48) 
26.0% 
** 
(0.45) 
7,421 

2.06 
(0.05) 
24.1% 
*** 
(1.10) 

20.5% 
(1.47) 
1,339 

42.1% 
*** 
(0.59) 

23.3% 
(0.44) 
38.6% 
* 
(0.50) 
28.1% 
*** 
(0.49) 
6,231 

23.1% 
(1.63) 
1,258 

30.2% 
*** 
(0.55) 
24.4% 
*** 
(0.47) 
38.4% 
* 
(0.52) 
29.7% 
*** 
(0.52) 
5,741 

2.03 
(0.05) 

2.17 
(0.03) 

2.16 
(0.04) 

2.09 
(0.02) 

2.14 
(0.03) 

2.13 
(0.02) 

2.09 
(0.03) 

12.8% 
(1.25) 

41.7% 
(1.39) 

44.7% 
(1.42) 

26.8% 
(0.77) 

23.2% 
(0.65) 

27.2% 
(0.77) 

27.6% 
(0.92) 
32.2% 
** 
(0.97) 
4,226 

42.5% 
*** 
(0.40) 

42.4% 
(1.40) 
2,221 

42.9% 
(1.41) 
2,135 

26.2% 
(0.67) 
5,899 

28.1% 
(0.92) 
4,233 

29.3% 
(0.79) 
5,906 

53.0% 
(0.52) 

53.8% 
(0.52) 

41.4% 
(0.37) 

42.1% 
* 
(0.41) 

41.1% 
(0.36) 

31.8% 
(0.39) 

32.3% 
(0.39) 

27.3% 
(0.30) 

27.3% 
(0.33) 

27.1% 
(0.29) 

27.5% 
(0.32) 

40.2% 
(0.42) 

31.9% 
(0.42) 
9,953 

40.7% 
(0.41) 
33.3% 
*** 
(0.42) 
9,711 

39.9% 
(0.34) 

39.4% 
(0.38) 

39.6% 
(0.34) 

39.8% 
(0.36) 

29.3% 
(0.34) 
26,229 

29.5% 
(0.37) 
20,331 

29.2% 
(0.33) 
26,721 

29.6% 
(0.36) 
19,839 

* significance at 10%, ** significance at 5%, *** significance at 1%  

difference in means test as compared to baseline in each treatment: for websites 2-7, standard errors were clustered at respondent level 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

It is interesting to note that the inclusion of scarcity text does not affect the response 
to any of the questions at a meaningful level.104 One should be cautious in concluding 
that such text is ineffective. It is likely that the motivation and attention of shoppers in 
these  hypothetical  vignettes  is  low  compared  to  shoppers  who  are  making  real  life 
purchases. Given that respondents are not engaged at the same level they otherwise 
would  be,  it  is  not  expected  that  such  small  changes  in  context  will  affect  their 
decisions  to  a  great  extent.  Similarly,  there  is  no  noticeable  difference  in  responses 
when comparing treatments showing the “enrol now” button as compared to the “buy 
now”  button.  The  null  finding  for  this  treatment  can  be  explained  in  much  the  same 
way:  small  changes  in  text  are  unlikely  to  affect  non-motivated  shoppers  in  a 
hypothetical  setting.  These  treatments  were  included  to  test  recent  policy  reforms  in 
the  EU.  Given  that  the  findings  were  not  significant,  these  results  are  not  discussed 
further. 

In  what  follows,  the  results  shown  are  described  in  more  detail;  in  particular, 
respondents’  interest  in  enrolment  in  a  trial  and  the  likelihood  of  noticing  the  fee  or 
trial length are considered. Many of these results remain true, even after more robust 
analysis controlling for demographic characteristics, internet usage, product familiarity 
and other factors. The results also remained equivalent in magnitude. This tends to be 
generally  true  for  experimental  designs  since  the  unobserved  factors  that  may  be 
driving the differences are uniformly randomised across treatments. 

13.2.1.

  Enrolment in Trials 

Participants in general report that they were unlikely to enrol in trial subscriptions for 
the  products  shown  in this  experiment.  Over  two-thirds  of  respondents  reported  that 
they are “not at all likely” or “not so likely” to order or enrol in a trial. Indeed, fewer 
than  20%  of  people  reported  being  “likely”  or  “very  likely”  to  enrol.  The  same 
decreasing pattern held across all seven products, though some products were a little 
more popular than others. 

Figure 57 Interest in Trial Enrolment 

Note: Q01 How likely are you to “order a free sample” / “enrol for a free trial”? (1 = Not at all likely; 2 = 
Not so likely; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Likely; 5 = Very likely). N = 10,113. 

104  There  is  a  statistically  significant  difference  in  response for  those  that  received  scarcity  text  and  those 
who  did  not  for  question  Q4.  However  the  difference  in  responses  is  not  economically  sizeable.  For 
example, when there was no scarcity text, 41.4% of respondents noticed the monthly fee whereas when 
there  was  scarcity  text,  42.1%  of  respondents  noticed  the  monthly  fee.  This  difference  is  statistically 
significant, due to the large number of observations. However, the 0.7% difference is still quite small in 
practical terms.  

230 

 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure  58  reports  respondents’  interest  for  each  of  the  specific  products.  While  the 
general shape of the distribution was similar for all products, with most being not at all 
likely to order or enrol, some products were of more interest than others. Respondents 
were  most  interested  in  Freeflow,  a  digital  streaming  service  offering  movies,  and 
Lustera,  a  skin  cream.  Respondents  were  least  interested  in  Pump-XL,  a  muscle 
building  supplement,  and  Amora,  a  dating  service.  Figure  58  shows  the  number  who 
reported being likely or very likely to buy each product. 

Figure 58 Interest in Trial, by product 

Note: Q01 How likely are you to “order a free sample” / “enrol for a free trial”? (Response 4 = Likely or 5 = 
Very likely). N = 1,856. 

13.2.2.

  Noticing Monthly Fees  

Arguably,  one  of  the  most  important  measures  of  our  study  is  the  extent  to  which 
people noticed the enrolment details of the website. When the price is salient, people 
were more likely to notice recurring fees. A comparison of the weighted means across 
the information treatments (Figure 59) reveals that notices about the subscription only 
mattered when the cost is displayed in large font. For the physical products, where the 
cost  of  the  monthly  membership  was  hidden  in  the  small  print,  about  11.4%  of 
individuals  reported  that  they  notice  the  monthly  fees  in  the  baseline.  There  was  no 
statistically  significant  increase  in  the  chance  of  noticing  the  fees  when  a  notice  of 
subscription  (notice  treatment)  was  provided  or  when  a  notice  about  the  length  of 
time to cancel (date treatment) was provided, as compared to the baseline. However, 
the  likelihood  of  noticing  the  subscription  fee  more  than  doubled  to  24.1%  when  the 
subscription  fee  is  stated  explicitly  (cost  treatment).  For  the  digital  products,  where 
the products tend to have more information about the price displayed on the website, 
a much larger proportion of individuals notice the recurring fees.  

It is worth noting that despite the disclosure  of subscription price information for the 
physical  products;  still  only  24%  of  respondents  noticed  the  fee.  For  the  digital 
products,  where  the  subscription  information  is  very  large  and  quite  clearly  marked, 
about 42-45% of respondents noticed the fee. This is revealing: there is a clear upper 
bound  to  the  protection  that  disclosure  mandates  can  have.  There  will  always  be  a 
significant fraction of people who do not pay attention to product detail descriptions.  

231 

 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 59 Notice of Subscription Fees, by Information Treatment 

Note:  Q02:  Did  you  notice  any  recurring  monthly  fees  associated  with  this  product?  If  so,  please  list  the 
monthly fees. N = 10,132. 

As  discussed  in  the  following  section,  these  proportions  did  not  vary,  even  after 
controlling for demographic characteristics (gender, age, education, financial situation, 
location), product familiarity (interest in the product, past purchases of product), and 
internet  usage  (non-work  hours  on  the  internet,  attention  to  terms  and  conditions). 
Furthermore,  we  checked  to  see  whether  there  was  an  interaction  between  the 
information  treatments  and  each  of  the  population  characteristics  available  for 
respondents. There were no significant interaction effects. 

Whereas the first website asked individuals about their own behaviour, the subsequent 
websites asked individuals to state their beliefs about others’ behaviour. On average, 
respondents believed that a larger proportion of other shoppers would notice the fees 
than  was  found  when  respondents  were  asked  if  they  themselves  noticed. 
Respondents  may  report  that  others  are  more  likely  to  notice  because  the 
experimental design and the questions asked draw their attention to this information. 
Simply  by  asking  about  subscriptions,  the  experiment  makes  these  features  more 
salient than they would be in a real world setting. As with the first website, the results 
for  websites  2-7  show  that  many  more  people  (42%)  are  likely  to  notice  the 
subscription  for  a  physical  product  when  the  cost  is  displayed  in  large  font  as 
compared  to  the  baseline  (29%).  This  can  be  seen  in  figure  13  below.  The  notice  of 
the  subscription  might  also  have  a  small  effect,  with  33%  noticing;  while  the 
difference  compared  to  the  baseline  (29%)  is  statistically  significant,  the  impact  is 
small.  Again  the  results  show  that  in  the  baseline  condition  more  are  likely  to  notice 
the recurring fees with digital products (53%)  compared to physical products (29%), 
mostly probably due to the very different design of the websites. 

232 

 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 60 Notice of Subscription Fees (by Others), by Information Treatment 

Note: Q04: What proportion of typical shoppers will notice the monthly subscription fee? N = 53,397. 

The  fact  that  so  few  people  notice  the  subscription  fees  is  certainly  concerning, 
especially  if  the  cost  is  likely  to  affect  the  decision  to  purchase.  Indeed,  when 
respondents  were  asked  about  the  likelihood  that  other  shoppers  would  purchase  an 
item if  they  did  notice  the  fee  (see  Figure  61),  they  thought  it  would  be  much  lower 
than  if  they  had  not  noticed  the  fee.  As  shown  in  Table  34,  this  did  not  vary  by 
treatment. This comparison suggests that shoppers generally believe that the websites 
are misleading to other consumers. 

Figure 61 Purchase Rate of Subscription, by Detection of Fee 

Note: Q05: What proportion of typical shoppers will buy this product if they notice the monthly subscription 
fee? N = 54,850. And, Q06: What proportion of typical shoppers will buy this product if they do not notice 
the monthly subscription fee? N = 53,264. 

Ultimately,  the  goal  of  a  labelling  intervention  that  alerts  customers  to  subscription 
products is to ensure that any customer who  buys the “free trial” realises that it is a 
subscription.  If  in  fact  customers  are  being  misled,  when  more  customers  are  made 
aware of  subscriptions it is possible that fewer  customers will purchase the products. 
Based  on  the  responses  to  questions  Q4,  Q5,  and  Q6,  it  is  possible  to  calculate  the 
proportion of people that would buy an item under each of the information treatments, 
as follows: 

Pr(buy) = Pr(notice fee)*Pr(buy if notice fee) + Pr(don’t notice fee)* Pr(buy if don’t notice fee) 

If information treatments change the proportion of customers who notice the recurring 
fee (Pr(notice fee)), and those who notice the recurring fee are less likely to buy if they 
notice the fee (Pr(buy if notice fee)), then we would expect the overall rate of purchase 
(Pr(buy)) to go down when more people are aware of the fee. If this is done for each 
information  treatment,  we  can  get  a  sense  of  the  effectiveness  of  mandatory 
disclosure regulations on purchase rates. Using the responses about others’ behaviour, 

233 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

people essentially expect that for physical products in the baseline condition, 37.2% of 
individuals will buy the product (see table 20). This breaks down into 10.0% of people 
buying the product after noticing the fee and 27.2% of people buying the product after 
not  noticing  the  fee.  If  a  disclosure  law  required  that  costs  must  be  displayed 
alongside  purchases,  the  proportion  of  people  buying  the  product  would  drop  to 
33.2%,  a  drop  of  four  percentage  points  in  absolute  terms  or  slightly  over  10.7%  of 
purchases.  This  breaks  down  into  12.3%  of  people  buying  the  product  after  noticing 
the  fee  and  20.9%  of  people  buying  the  product  after  not  noticing  the  fee.  A  larger 
fraction  of  people  buy  when  they  notice  the  fee  with  cost  disclosure,  because  more 
people  who  are  interested  in  buying  will  now  notice  a  fee.  In  contrast,  a  smaller 
percentage  of  people  will  buy  once  they  notice  the  fee.  Part  of  this  is  consumer 
protection and part of it is that there are fewer people that will not notice the fee. The 
impact of the policy will reduce purchases by about 10% as compared to the baseline. 

Table 34: Estimated Likelihood of Purchase by Disclosure Condition 

Physical Products 

Digital Products 

Baseline 

Notice 

Cost 

Date 

Baseline 

Date 

Pr(buy) 

37.2% 

37.0% 

33.2%*** 

36.7% 

37.6% 

38.0% 

13.2.3.

  Notice Trial Length  

Survey  respondents  typically  did  not  notice  the  trial  length  associated  with  the 
subscription. As shown in Figure 62, on average, about 21.2% of respondents noticed 
the  trial  length  for  the  physical  products.  Comparing  across  the  different  information 
treatments  for  the  physical  products,  none  of  the  treatments  affected  how  many 
noticed the trial period, including the date treatment that explicitly stated in the length 
of  the  trial  in  large  font.  The  proportion  who  noticed  the  length  of  the  trial  nearly 
doubled for the digital products [though people may be confused regarding the length 
of the subscription and the length of the trial]. There was an error in the images – in 
the  fine  print  everybody  was  given  30  days,  whereas  in  the  information  treatments 
and  on  the  website  they  were  given  between  7  and  14  days.  However,  these 
inconsistencies are not uncommon in actual websites, and respondents are considered 
to  have  noticed  the  length  of  the  trial  regardless  of  whether  they  actually  correctly 
reported the length of the trial. 

With regards to the length of the trial, 21.6% of respondents noticed the length in the 
baseline  treatment  for  the  physical  products,  while  42.4%  noticed  in  the  baseline 
treatment  for  the  digital  products.  The  information  treatments  had  no  discernible 
impact on respondents observation of the length of the trial.  

234 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 62: Notice of Trial Length, by Information Treatment 

Note: Q03: Did you notice how long the free trial lasts? If so, please list the cancellation terms? N = 10,132. 

Figure 63 considers the websites where respondents were asked about the proportion 
of  other  shoppers  who  would  notice  the  length  of  the  free  trial.  In  this  case,  the 
proportion  who  respondents  thought  others  would  notice  was  much  higher  compared 
to  how  many  noticed  for  the  first  website,  when  respondents  were  asked  what  they 
themselves  noticed.  In  fact,  respondents  believed  that  the  information  treatment 
stating the trial length (labelled date below) would be the most likely to get people to 
notice,  where  in  the  first  website  it  did  not  make  any  difference.  For  the  physical 
products,  the  proportion  noticing  the  trial  length  was  statistically  significantly  higher 
for  both  the  treatment  highlighting  the  cost  of  the  subscription  and  the  trial  length. 
This may be the result of a focusing illusion, a common bias that occurs when people 
know where to look and thus they believe that others are likely to notice as well. For 
the  digital  products,  there  was  no  significant  effect  of  the  information  treatments. 
While  significant  effects  are  found,  even  in  the  best-case  scenario,  only  a  third  of 
respondents noticed the trial length. 

235 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 63: Notice of Trial Length (by Others), by Information Treatment 

Note: Q07: What proportion of typical shoppers will notice the cancellation policy? N = 55,255. 

13.2.4.

  Overconfident Beliefs about Future Behaviour 

Overconfidence  bias  can  reduce  a  consumer’s  assessment  of  risk  or  potential 
outcomes,  as  outlined  in  Annex  11.  Some  consumers  order  free  trials  with  the 
intention  of  cancelling  before  the  subscription  begins.  In  order  to  minimise  harm  to 
consumers,  it  is  not  only  important  that  they  are  aware  of  fees,  but  also  that  they 
have correct beliefs regarding their own future likelihood to cancel. In order to better 
understand how to protect consumers, it is crucial to understand what causes people 
to engage in these subscriptions: is it that they are unaware of buying a subscription 
or is it that they are overconfident about their ability to cancel on time. 

Subscriptions  (and  free  trials)  are  often  designed  to  automatically  renew,  taking 
advantage of the fact that many people will forget to cancel. Some individuals sign up 
with confidence that they will cancel in time. However, many fail to do so, suggesting 
that  overconfidence  plays  a  role.  By  asking  individuals  about  how  likely  they  are  to 
cancel  in  time  and  how  likely  others  are  to  cancel  in  time,  we  can  observe  whether 
individuals on average are more confident about their own abilities than about others, 
a sign of overconfidence.  

Two sets of questions were posed to survey respondents to address  the possibility of 
overconfidence. The first set of questions was given after exposure to the first website 
and  asked  about  individuals  own  likelihood  of  cancelling  free  trials  before  the  end  of 
the trial period and the likelihood of other shoppers to cancel before the end of a free 
trial.  These  questions  were  asked  about  products  in  general,  not  about  the  specific 
product shown in the first website. The questions are below. 

236 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

WEBSITE 1: 

For  the  next  two  questions,  we  will  ask  you  about  free  trials  in  general,  not 
necessarily this product. 

Q8:  In  general,  if  you  were  to  sign  up  for  a  free  trial  (not  necessarily  this 
product),  how  likely  do  you  think  you  would  be  to  remember  to  cancel  before 
the  trial  was  over?  (1  =  Not  at  all  likely;  2  =  Not  so  likely;  3  =  Neutral;  4  = 
Likely; 5 = Very likely) 

Q9: In general, if someone else were to sign up for a free trial (not necessarily 
this  product),  how  likely  do  you  think  they  would  be  to  remember  to  cancel 
before the trial was over? (1 = Not at all likely; 2 = Not so likely; 3 = Neutral; 4 
= Likely; 5 = Very likely) 

If  no  one  is  over  or  under  confident,  then  on  average,  the  proportion  who  believes 
they will remember to cancel should be equivalent to the proportion who believes that 
others  will  remember  to  cancel.  As  shown  in  Figure  64,  people  are  more  confident 
about  their  own  likelihood  of  cancelling  than  about  others.  Overall  53%  of  people 
thought  that  they  themselves  were  likely  or  very  likely  to  remember  to  cancel  a 
subscription.  However,  confidence  in  others  was  not  nearly  so  high:  about  29%  of 
people  believed  others  were  likely  or  very  likely  to  remember  to  cancel  their 
subscription.  This  suggests  that  people  are  systematically  overconfident  in  their 
likelihood to perform this task as compared to others. 

Figure 64: Notice of Trial Length (by Others), by Information Treatment 

Note: Q08: In general, if you were to sign up for a free trial (not necessarily this product), how likely do you 
think you would be to remember to cancel before the trial was over? N = 10,095. And Q09: In general, if 
someone  else  were  to  sign  up  for  a  free  trial  (not  necessarily  this  product),  how  likely  do  you  think  they 
would be to remember to cancel before the trial was over? N = 10,018. 

The  next  set  of  questions  enquired  about  others’  behaviour  and  was  presented  after 
each Website, 2 – 7. These questions ask respondents about the portion of others who 
buy  with  the  intention  of  cancelling  along  with  the  portion  who  ultimately  do  not 
cancel. 

WEBSITE 2 – WEBSITE 7: 

Q10:  What  proportion  of  typical  shoppers  who  notice  the  terms  and  conditions 
and order the free trial do you think intend to cancel before the end of the trial? 

Q11:  What  proportion  of  typical  shoppers  who  notice  the  terms  and  conditions 
and  order  the  free  trial  do  you  think  actually  will  cancel  before  the  end  of  the 
trial? 

237 

 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Figure 65: Overconfidence of Cancelation Rates 

Note: Q10: What proportion of typical shoppers who notice the terms and conditions and order the free trial 
do you think intend to cancel before the end of the trial? N = 55,427. And Q11: What proportion of typical 
shoppers  who  notice  the  terms  and  conditions  and  order  the  free  trial  do  you  think  actually  will  cancel 
before the end of the trial? N = 54,056. 

Again, these results suggest that many intend to cancel (52% in the experiment), but 
few  actually  do  (38%),  as  shown  in  Figure  65.  Interestingly,  there  was  no  difference 
across  treatments  for  these  variables.  Policy  interventions  to  address  overconfidence 
may be difficult to design as they require changing consumers’ mindset, not just their 
information. 

13.3.  Conclusion 

Overall, the results of the experiment suggest that more salient labelling that includes 
a  notice  of  the  monthly  fee  to  be  charged  after  the  end  of  the  free  trial  can  help  to 
improve  consumers’  awareness  of  subscription  traps.  This  is  evidenced  by  the 
comparison  of  the  cost  treatment,  which  puts  the  monthly  fee  in  large  font,  to  the 
baseline  for  physical  products  and  by  the  comparison  of  the  physical products  to  the 
digital products, where  details of the subscriptions are generally much more obvious. 
However,  even  with  digital  products  where  a  table  is  shown  describing  the 
subscription,  the  majority  of  respondents  in  the  experiment  are  not  aware  of  the 
recurring fees. This suggests that labelling may not be sufficient to protect consumers 
from  subscription  traps.  Consistent  with  the  literature  outlined  in  Annex  11,  even 
when good information is supplied, consumers do not always make the best decisions. 
In order to protect more consumers it may be necessary to identify other interventions 
besides  information  displays,  such  as  protection  through  the  financial  intermediaries 
who process payments. 

The results suggest that making subscription costs more noticeable could be effective 
for some consumers. However the precise size of the effects (as with all hypothetical 
choice  experiments)  should  be  interpreted  with  caution.  The  responses  might  not  be 
the same for actual shoppers as it is not possible to recreate the emotional frame that 
drives someone online to purchase these types of goods and services. In particular, in 
real world situations, subscription traps might be more effective for products that prey 
on consumers’ insecurities, such as weight loss supplements or acne treatments. 

The results also suggest that overconfidence that one will remember to cancel is likely 
to  contribute  to  subscription  traps.  This  is,  presumably,  why  companies  offer 
subscriptions; they realise that many consumers will fail to cancel. 

There  are  a  number  of  additional  findings  that  are  illuminating.  First,  it  seems  that 
individuals  are  not  interested  in  enrolling  in  most  subscriptions.  Second,  people 
systematically believe that others are more likely to notice the fee than they are. This 
might  be  due  to  the  fact  that  people  become  knowledgeable  about  where  to  look  for 
the  subscription  fees  and  focus  too  closely  on  that  portion  of  the  text  and 
subsequently believe that others do the same. This type of behaviour is well-known in 

238 

 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

the decision-making literature and is referred to as the “curse of knowledge.” Finally, 
respondents  believe  that  other  shoppers  are  more  likely  to  make  a  purchase  when 
they do not notice the  fees compared to when they do. To the extent that people do 
not notice the subscription fees, then they will make ill-informed purchase decisions.  

13.4.  Additional information 

Questionnaire 
INTRODUCTION 
Info1. [Info] 
Dear participant,  
This  questionnaire  is  part  of  a  project  regarding  consumer  decision-making  on  the 
internet. The questionnaire will only take 15 minutes to fill in.  
Answers are provided on a voluntary basis and collected anonymously. No link will be 
made  between  these  answers  and  any  information  permitting  to  identify  their  origin. 
The statistical results will not allow for the identification of a person. 
Please complete the questionnaire as honestly as possible, there are no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ 
answers. 
We thank you very much for your participation! 
SCREENER QUESTIONS 
S01 [S] 
Have you ever purchased a good or a service online?  
Respondent instruction: For instance: a flight or train ticket, prescription drugs, music 
1. Yes 
2. No 
Scripter: IF S01=2 – SCREENOUT 
S02 [S] 
On  average,  how  much  time  per  day  do  you  actively  use  the  Internet  for  non-work 
related  purposes?  This  can  include  browsing  online,  shopping,  sending  emails,  using 
social  media,  online  gaming  etc.  Please  try  to  give  an  approximate  value in  terms  of 
hours and minutes.  
Respondent  instruction:  For  instance,  if  you  spend  on  average  7  hours  online,  1  day 
per week, your answer should be 1h 0min 
Scripter:  Insert  2  number  boxes.  Hours  [Q]  range  from  0  to  24,  Minutes  [Q]  range 
from 0 to 59. Minutes can be empty, hours can be empty. At least 1 needs to be filled 
in.  If  hours  >24  or  minutes  >  59,  error  message  “Amount  you  have  entered  is  too 
large.” 
[Q] Hours and [Q] Minutes 
S03 [SGrid] 
How interested are you in the following products/services? 
Rows: 

1.  Cosmetics and healthcare products 
2.  Food and health supplements (nutrition, diet, muscle enhancer etc) 
3.  Dating services 
4.  Cloud based backup services (to store or share files)  

Columns: 

1.  Not at all interested 
2.  Not so interested 
3.  Neutral 
4.  Interested 
5.  Very interested 

S04 [SGrid] 
Over the last 12 months, how many times did you purchase or subscribe online for: 
Rows: 

1.  Cosmetics and healthcare products 
2.  Food and health supplements (nutrition, diet, muscle enhancer etc) 
3.  Dating services 

239 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

4.  Cloud based backup services (to store or share files)  

Columns: 

1.  0 
2.  1 
3.  2 
4.  3 or more 

MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE 
Scripter:  In  this  questionnaire,  respondents  need  to  answer  questions  concerning  7 
images  they  will  see.  The  images  represent  websites  where  people  can  sign  up  for  a 
free  trial.  There  are  two  main  parts  in  this  questionnaire:  A.  Website  1  (in  which 
respondents will discuss one image) and C. Website 2 – 7 (in which  respondents will 
discuss the remaining 6 images). 
First of all, a hidden variable needs to be created, because the 7 websites/images the 
respondents  need  to  discuss  refer  to  different  products.  In  this  hidden  variable,  the 
different products are stored. 
Create hidden variable 
Hidden_Product 

1.  GC Pharma 
2.  Pump – XL  
3.  Lustera 
4.  Aloderme 
5.  Amora 
6.  Freeflow 
7.  AirTight 

For  the  first  4  options  (GC  Pharma,  Pump  –  XL,  Lustera  and  Aloderme)  16  possible 
images  can  be  shown  to  the  respondent.  For  the  others  (Amora,  Freeflow  and 
AirTight),  there  are  8  possible  images.  This  is  chosen  randomly,  so  it  doesn’t  matter 
which image the respondents sees for a certain product, as long as in the end, he or 
she has seen one image for each product. 
Product 

1.  GC Pharma 
2.  Pump – XL  
3.  Lustera 
4.  Aloderme 
5.  Amora 
6.  Freeflow 
7.  AirTight 

Images 
P1_SC1 – P1_SC16 
P2_SC1 – P2_SC16 
P3_SC1 – P3_SC16 
P4_SC1 – P4_SC16 
P5_SC1 – P5_SC8 
P6_SC1 – P6_SC8 
P7_SC1 – P7_SC8 

Important  note:  every  time  an  image  is  displayed,  respondents  should  be  able  to 
enlarge the picture by clicking on it! 
For part A. Website 1: 

-  Randomly choose one option from the hidden_product variable to show picture 
of.  Create  hidden  variable:  hidden_website1  to  store  the  chosen  option  (e.g. 
1). 

-  The  picture  that  is  shown  is  chosen  randomly  from  the  8/16  options  of  the 
chosen product. Create hidden variable: hidden_picture1 to  store the name of 
the chosen picture (e.g. P1_SC1). 

-  The  picture  appears  on  a  screen  without  anything  else.  After  respondents 

continue, the picture disappears and respondents answer Q1 – Q6. 

For part C. Website 2 – 7: 

-  Q10  –  Q13  will  be  repeated  6  times  so  each  respondent  answers  questions 
about  all  7  categories  from  the  variable  hidden_product.  For  this  part,  the 
picture stays on the screen while the respondents are answering the questions. 
First loop:  

- 

o  Randomly choose 1 option from hidden_product BUT not the one stored 
in  hidden_website1.  Create  hidden_variable:  hidden_website2  to  store 
the chosen option. 

240 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

o  The  picture  that  is  shown  is  chosen  randomly  from  the  8/16  options  of 
the chosen product (the one stored in hidden_website2). Create hidden 
variable: hidden_picture2 to store the name of the chosen picture. 

o  The  picture  stays  on  the  screen  while  answering  the  questions  Q10  – 

Q13. 

-  Second loop:  

o  Randomly  choose  1  option  from  hidden_product  BUT  not  the  ones 
stored in hidden_website1 or hidden_website2. Create hidden_variable: 
hidden_website3 to store the chosen option. 

o  The  picture  that  is  shown  is  chosen  randomly  from  the  8/16  options  of 
the chosen product (the one stored in hidden_website3). Create hidden 
variable: hidden_picture3 to store the name of the chosen picture. 

o  The  picture  stays  on  the  screen  while  answering  the  questions  Q10  – 

Q13. 
-  Third loop:  

o  Randomly  choose  1  option  from  hidden_product  BUT  not  the  ones 
stored  in  hidden_website1,  hidden_website  2  or  hidden_website3. 
Create hidden_variable: hidden_website4 to store the chosen option. 
o  The  picture  that  is  shown  is  chosen  randomly  from  the  8/16  options  of 
the chosen product (the one stored in hidden_website4). Create hidden 
variable: hidden_picture4 to store the name of the chosen picture. 

o  The  picture  stays  on  the  screen  while  answering  the  questions  Q10  – 

Q13. 

- 

Fourth loop:  

o  Randomly  choose  1  option  from  hidden_product  BUT  not  the  ones 
in  hidden_website1,  hidden_website2,  hidden_website3  or 
stored 
hidden_website4. Create hidden_variable: hidden_website5 to store the 
chosen option. 

o  The  picture  that  is  shown  is  chosen  randomly  from  the  8/16  options  of 
the chosen product (the one stored in hidden_website5). Create hidden 
variable: hidden_picture5 to store the name of the chosen picture. 

o  The  picture  stays  on  the  screen  while  answering  the  questions  Q10  – 

Q13. 

- 

Fifth loop:  

o  Randomly  choose  1  option  from  hidden_product  BUT  not  the  ones 
in  hidden_website1,  hidden_website2,  hidden_website3, 
hidden_variable: 

stored 
hidden_website4 
hidden_website6 to store the chosen option. 

hidden_website5.  Create 

or 

o  The  picture  that  is  shown  is  chosen  randomly  from  the  8/16  options  of 
the chosen product (the one stored in hidden_website6). Create hidden 
variable: hidden_picture6 to store the name of the chosen picture. 

o  The  picture  stays  on  the  screen  while  answering  the  questions  Q10  – 

Q13. 
-  Sixth loop:  

o  Choose  the  remaining  option  from  hidden_product  (the  one  that  is  not 
in  hidden_website1,  hidden_website2,  hidden_website3, 
stored 
hidden_website4,  hidden_website5  or  hidden_website6).  Create 
hidden_variable: hidden_website7 to store the chosen option. 

o  The  picture  that  is  shown  is  chosen  randomly  from  the  8/16  options  of 
the chosen product (the one stored in hidden_website7). Create hidden 
variable: hidden_picture7 to store the name of the chosen picture. 

o  The  picture  stays  on  the  screen  while  answering  the  questions  Q10  – 

Q13. 

Website 1 

After the sixth loop, the questionnaire continues (Q14). 
A 
Scripter : Insert image as explained at the beginning of the questionnaire. The image 
is the only thing on the screen. If the respondents go to the next question, the image 
disappears. 
Q1 [S]  

241 

 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

How likely are you to [Scripter: randomly insert: “order a free sample” / “enrol for a 
free trial”] 
Respondent instruction: There is only one answer possible. 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Q2 [S] 
Did you notice any recurring monthly fees associated with this product? 
Respondent instruction: If so, please list the monthly fees 

Not at all likely 
Not so likely 
Neutral 
likely  
Very likely 

1.  No 
2.  Yes, the monthly fees amount to [Numeric field] £  
Scripter: min.=1, max.=99 (or 0 not possible, 2 digits max.) 

Q4 [S] 
Did you notice how long the free trial lasts? 
Respondent instruction: If so, please list the cancellation terms? 

1.  No 
2.  Yes, the free trial lasts [Numeric field] days 
Scripter: min.=1, max.=99 (or 0 not possible, 2 digits max.) 

Q5 [S] 
In  general,  if  you  were  to  sign  up  for  a  free  trial  (not  necessarily  this  product),  how 
likely do you think you would be to remember to cancel before the trial was over? 
Respondent instruction: There is only one answer possible. 

1.  Not at all likely 
2.  Not so likely 
3.  Neutral 
4.  Likely  
5.  Very likely 

Q6 [S] 
In  general,  if  someone  else  were  to  sign  up  for  a  free  trial  (not  necessarily  this 
product), how likely do you think they would be to remember to cancel before the trial 
was over?  
Respondent instruction: There is only one answer possible. 

1.  Not at all likely 
2.  Not so likely 
3.  Neutral 
4.  likely  
5.  Very likely 

Website 2 

Further instructions 

B 
Info2. [Info] 
For the remainder of the survey, we will show you websites for a variety of products. 
We  will  ask  you  questions  about  other  shopper’s  behavior.  When  asked  about  others 
behaviour, please consider a typical shopper of these sites.  
C 
Scripter: Part C will be  repeated for 6 different images as  explained at the beginning 
of the questionnaire. The selected picture stays on the screen until all questions (Q10 
–  Q13)  are  answered.  After  Q13  is  answered,  the  loop  restarts  at  Q10  with  a  new 
image. 
Q10. [S] 
What proportion of people will notice the monthly subscription fee? 
Respondent instruction: There is only one answer possible. 

1.  Almost nobody  
2.  25% or less 
3.  Around 50% 
4.  75% or less 
5.  Almost everybody 

Q11. [SGRID] 
What proportion of people will buy this product? 

242 

 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Columns : 

1.  Almost nobody  
2.  25% or less 
3.  Around 50% 
4.  75% or less 
5.  Almost everybody 

Rows: 

1.  If they notice the monthly subscription fee? 
2.  If they do not notice the monthly subscription fee? 

Q12 [S] 
What proportion of people will notice the cancellation policy? 

1.  Almost nobody  
2.  25% or less 
3.  Around 50% 
4.  75% or less 
5.  Almost everybody 

Always  
Most of the time  
Sometimes 
Never 

Almost nobody  
25% or less 
Around 50% 
75% or less 
Almost everybody 

Intend to cancel before the end of the trial 
Actually will cancel before the end of the trial 
Last question  

Q13 [SGRID] 
What proportion of people who notice the terms and conditions and order the free trial 
do you think… 
Columns: 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
Rows: 
1. 
2. 
C 
Q14 [S] 
How often do you read the terms and conditions of online sellers or buyers? 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
VII. END of questionnaire 
Q15 [S] 
Thank you for your cooperation! 
We would like to contact you again for our follow-up survey. If you agree to take this 
survey, please enter your e-mail address or telephone number on the next page. We 
will  keep  your  information  confidential  and  use  it  only  to  contact  you  for  the  survey. 
Your  personal  information  will  never  be  linked  in  any  way  to  your  answers  to  either 
survey, and will always remain confidential. 
Do you want to participate again? 
1. 
2. 
Base: IF Q15 = 1 
Q16 [M] 
Respondent instruction: Please write here your email address and / or your telephone 
number 
1. 
2. 

Yes, I want to participate again 
No, I prefer not to participate again 

Email [O] 
Telephone number [O] 

Sample Websites 

The following images display sample websites for each of the products included in the 
behavioural  experiment.  These  images  are  also  used  to  illustrate  the  three 
randomisations  that  took  place  and  which  are  described  in  more  detail  in  the  main 

243 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

text.  For  each  website  at  the  top  of  the  page  the  product,  the  notice  of  subscription 
terms treatment, the scarcity treatment, and the enrol / buy treatment are listed. The 
implementation  for  each  treatment  was  similar  for  the  digital  products  and  for  the 
physical products. At least one example of each treatment is provided.  

244 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Product type: physical 
Product: Garcinia Cambogia 
Notice of subscription terms treatment: baseline (no info) 
Scarcity treatment: baseline (no scarcity text) 
Enrol / buy treatment: baseline (order) 

Product type: physical 

Product: Pump-XL 
Notice of subscription terms treatment: notification of subscription 

245 

 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Scarcity treatment: scarcity text 
Enrol / buy treatment: buy now 

246 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Product type: physical 
Product: Lustera 
Notice of subscription terms treatment: cost of subscription 
Scarcity treatment: baseline (no scarcity text) 
Enrol / buy treatment: buy now 

247 

 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Product type: physical 
Product: Aloderm 
Notice of subscription terms treatment: notification of cancellation date 
Scarcity treatment: scarcity text 
Enrol / buy treatment: baseline (order) 

248 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Product type: digital 
Product: Amora 
Notice of subscription terms treatment: baseline (no info) 
Scarcity treatment: baseline (no scarcity text) 
Enrol / buy treatment: baseline (enrol) 

249 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Product type: digital 
Product: Freeflow 
Notice of subscription terms treatment: notification of cancellation date 
Scarcity treatment: scarcity text 
Enrol / buy treatment: buy now 

250 

 
 
 
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Product type: digital 
Product: AirTight 
Notice of subscription terms treatment: baseline (no info) 
Scarcity treatment: scarcity text 
Enrol / buy treatment: baseline (enrol) 

251 

 
 
 
 
Supplemental Tables: Unweighted Summary Statistics. 

Table 35: Summary Statistics (unweighted analysis), by Treatment 

baseline 

PHYSICAL PRODUCTS 
notice 

cost 

date 

DIGITAL PRODUCTS 
date 

baseline 

SCARCITY TEXT 

ENROL VS. BUY 

no text 

scarcity 

enrol 

buy 

Website 1 (own behaviour) 
Q1: Desire to enrol (1= very 
unlikely, 5 very likely) 

Q2: Yes, noticed the monthly 
fees 

Q3: Yes, noticed the length of 
trial 

observations 

Websites 2-7 (belief of 
others behaviour) 
Q4: Fraction of others who will 
notice fee 

Q5: Fraction who would buy if 
they notice the fee 

Q6: Fraction who would buy if 
they do not notice the fee 

Q7: Fraction who will notice 
the trial length 

observations 

2.09 
(0.03) 

10.5% 
(0.78) 

18.5% 
(0.99) 
1,553 

29.9% 
(0.32) 

23.1% 
(0.25) 

39.4% 
(0.30) 

25.7% 
(0.28) 
9,780 

2.03 
(0.03) 

11.3% 
(0.78) 

17.1% 
(0.93) 
1,626 

1.99 ** 
(0.03) 

2.02 
(0.04) 

20.4% *** 
(1.10) 

11.0% 
(0.88) 

17.8% 
(1.05) 
1,339 

19.2% 
(1.11) 
1,258 

33.4% *** 
(0.33) 

43.6% *** 
(0.39) 

30.7% 
(0.37) 

24.3% *** 
(0.26) 

22.7% 
(0.29) 

23.8% * 
(0.30) 

39.8% 
(0.30) 

26.3% 
(0.29) 
9,553 

38.7% 
(0.33) 

38.3% ** 
(0.34) 

28.1% ***  30.2% *** 

(0.32) 
7,918 

(0.35) 
7,500 

2.16 
(0.03) 

34.8% 
(1.01) 

37.6% 
(1.03) 
2,221 

53.3% 
(0.32) 

30.8% 
(0.24) 

40.5% 
(0.26) 

31.2% 
(0.26) 
13,182 

2.13 
(0.03) 

36.3% 
(1.04) 

38% 
(1.05) 
2,135 

53.7% 
(0.32) 

31.2% 
(0.24) 

40.7% 
(0.26) 

33.1% *** 
(0.27) 
12,858 

2.07 
(0.02) 

22.4% 
(0.54) 

25.7% 
(0.57) 
5,899 

2.10 
(0.02) 

23.2% 
(0.65) 

27.9% ** 
(0.69) 
4,233 

2.10 
(0.02) 

22.4% 
(0.54) 

26.3% 
(0.57) 
5,906 

41.9% 
(0.19) 

42.9% *** 
(0.23) 

41.9% 
(0.19) 

26.5% 
(0.14) 

39.7% 
(0.16) 

29.3% 
(0.16) 
35,366 

26.9% 
(0.17) 

39.8% 
(0.19) 

29.5% 
(0.18) 
25,425 

26.5% 
(0.14) 

39.7% 
(0.16) 

29.3% 
(0.16) 
35,146 

2.06 * 
(0.02) 

23.2% 
(0.65) 

27.0% 
(0.68) 
4,226 

43.0% 
*** 
(0.23) 

26.9% 
(0.17) 

39.7% 
(0.18) 

29.5% 
(0.18) 
25,645 

* significance at 10%, ** significance at 5%, *** significance at 1%  
difference in means test as compared to baseline in each treatment: for websites 2-7, standard errors were clustered at participant level 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Supplemental Tables: Full Regression Results. 

The  supplemental  tables  include  the  full  regression  result  for  responses  to  each 
question, Q1-Q7, as a function of treatment and other identifying characteristics. The 
first  table  provides  the  weighted  results  while  the  second  table  provides  the  non-
weighted results. Weighting does not noticeably affect the results.  

A  linear  regression  was  run  on  the  responses  to  each  question  separately.  The 
outcome variables, Q1 – Q3, Q4 and Q7, are denoted across the varying columns. The 
list  of  regression  covariates  is  denoted  in  each  row,  and  also  categorised  below.  The 
regression models corresponding to websites 2-7 consist of multiple observations per 
respondent.  For  these  questions  (Q4  and  Q7),  the  data  is  aggregated  and  the 
standard errors are clustered by survey respondent.  

The analysis for each question includes the following controls: 

 

Information treatment (physical products):  

o  Baseline (omitted) 
o  Notice of subscription  
o  Notice of monthly fee 
o  Notice of cancellation date 

 

Information treatment (digital products):  

o  Baseline (omitted) 
o  Notice of cancellation date 

  Digital product indicator 
  Scarcity text treatment  

o  No text baseline (omitted) 
o  Scarcity text 

  Enrol vs. Buy treatment 

o  Enrol (omitted) 
o  Buy 

  Country 

Italy (omitted) 

o 
o  Lithuania 
o  Sweden 
o  Poland 
o  Bulgaria 
o  Netherlands 
o  Germany  
o  United Kingdom  

  Product105 

o  GC Pharma (omitted) 
o  Pump-XL 
o  Lustera 
o  Aloderm 
o  Amora 
o  Freeflow 
o  AirTight 
Interest in product  

 

o 

(1=not  at  all  interested,  2  =  not  so  interested,  3  =  neutral,  4  = 
interested, 5 = very interested) 
  Number of product purchases in past 12 months 
  Hours spent on the internet 
  Gender 

105  Coefficients  for  two  product  categories  are  omitted  for  the  analysis.  Garcinia  Cambogia  is  omitted  and 
used  as  the  baseline  by  which  to  compare  the  other  products.  Given  that  we  include  a  digital  product 
indicator,  which  is  equal  to  one  for  digital  products  and  zero  for  physical  products,  one  of  the  digital 
products  must  also  be  omitted.  For  example,  the  coefficient  on  Pump-XL  should  be  interpreted  as  the 
difference between Pump-XL and Carcinia Cambogia. 

253 

 
                                           
 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

o  Male (omitted) 
o  Female 

  Age 
  Education 

o  Less than high school (omitted) 
o  High school graduate 
o  College graduate 
o  Post-college graduate 
o  Still studying 
o  unknown 

  Financial Situation 

o  Very difficult (omitted) 
o  Fairly difficult 
o  Fairly easy 
o  Very easy 
o  Don’t know 

For  each  of  the  outcome  measures  below,  unweighted  and  weighted  regressions  are 
run. Results from the weighted regressions are presented below, though results from 
the unweighted regression are qualitatively similar.  

Desire to Enrol (Q1) 

The desire to enrol was measured by Q1, which asked: How likely are you to “order a 
free  sample”  /  “enrol  for  a  free  trial”?  (1  =  Not  at  all  likely;  2  =  Not  so  likely;  3  = 
Neutral; 4 = Likely; 5 = Very likely) 

The  effect  of  information  disclosure  on  the  desire  to  enrol  in  a  subscription,  based 
simply  on  mean  difference  across  treatment  was  little  to  none.  Using  regression 
analysis  with  the  full  list  of  controls,  the  effect  is  still  small,  though  there  is  a 
statistically  negative  effect  of  showing  the  cancellation  date  for  physical  products  as 
compared  to  showing  no  information.  There  is  no  detectable  effect  of  scarcity  claims 
on the desire to enrol, nor is there an effect of the usage of the term “buy” vs. “enrol.”  

On  average,  respondents  were  much  more  likely  to  be  likely  to  enrol  in  digital 
products  as  compared  to  physical  products,  and  within  the  product  categories,  there 
were  statistical  differences  in  the  popularity  of  the  individual  products.  There  were 
some  differences  in  enrolment  rates  across  the  various  countries:  Bulgarian 
respondents were most likely to wish to enrol whereas Swedes were the least likely to 
wish to enrol.  

At the start of the survey, people who stated that they were interested in the product 
categories  listed  and  that  they  had  purchased  the  product  category  were  more  likely 
to express a desire to enrol in a subscription after viewing the first website. Also, the 
more hours people spent on the internet in a typical week, the more likely they were 
to  express  an  interest  in  enrolling  in  the  trial.  A  proclivity  to  reading  the  terms  and 
conditions made no difference in wishing to enrol. 

Females  were  less  likely  to  be  interested  in  enrolling  than  males,  and  older  adults 
were less likely to want to enrol than young adults. Controlling for financial situation, 
more  educated  individuals  were  generally  less  likely  to  want  to  enrol,  with  the 
exception of post-college graduates, who were more likely to wish to enrol. People in 
better  financial  situations  were  more  likely  to  want  to  enrol  than  those  in  difficult 
financial straits. 

Notice the Monthly Fees (Q2) 

To measure the likelihood that the monthly fees are noticed, we use survey question 
Q2,  which  asked:  Did  you  notice  any  recurring  monthly  fees  associated  with  this 
product? If so, please list the monthly fees. 

254 

 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

The effect of information disclosure on the likelihood to notice the monthly fees, based 
simply  on  mean  difference  across  treatment  mattered  only  for  the  physical  products 
and  only  when  the  cost  of  the  subscription  was  displayed.  Using  regression  analysis 
with the full set of controls, the effect is qualitatively similar. People are 12.5% more 
likely to notice the monthly fee for the cost treatment, where the subscription cost is 
displayed in large font,  than for the baseline treatment. There is no detectable effect 
of scarcity claims on the likelihood to notice the fee, nor is there an effect of the usage 
of the term “buy” vs. “enrol.”  

On  average,  respondents  were  more  likely  to  notice  the  fees  for  digital  products  as 
compared  to  physical  products,  and  within  the  product  categories,  there  were 
statistical  differences  across  the  individual  products.  There  were  some  differences  in 
the share who noticed the recurring fees across countries: Bulgarians were least likely 
to notice the monthly fees whereas in the Netherlands respondents were most likely to 
notice the fees.  

People  who  stated  at  the  beginning  of  the  survey  that  they  were  interested  in  the 
product categories listed and that they had purchased the product category were more 
likely  to  notice  the  fees  in  the  websites.  Also,  a  proclivity  to  reading  the  terms  and 
conditions was positively associated with noticing the fees. The number of hours that 
respondents stated they spent on the internet did not affect the likelihood to notice.  

Males were no more likely than females to notice the fees and older adults were less 
likely  to  notice  as  compared  to  younger  individuals.  There  was  no  effect  of  stated 
financial situation on the likelihood to notice the fee. Controlling for financial situation, 
more educated individuals were generally more likely to notice the fees.  

Notice the Length of Trial (Q3) 

To  measure  the  likelihood  that  the  length  of  the  trial,  we  use  survey  question  Q3, 
which  asked:  Did  you  notice  how  long  the  free  trial  lasts?  =If  so,  please  list  the 
cancellation terms? 

The effect  of information disclosure  on the likelihood to notice the length of the trial, 
based  simply  on  mean  difference  across  treatment  did  not  really  matter.  Using 
regression analysis with the full set of controls, the effect is qualitatively similar. There 
was  no  noticeable  effect  of  information  notices  on  the  likelihood  to  notice  the  trial 
length.  Similarly,  there  is  no  detectable  effect  of  scarcity  claims  on  the  likelihood  to 
notice the trial length, nor is there an effect of the usage of the term “buy” vs. “enrol.”  

On average, respondents were more likely to notice the trial length for digital products 
as  compared  to  physical  products,  and  within  the  product  categories,  there  were 
statistical  differences  across  the  individual  products.  There  were  some  differences  in 
notice rates across countries: Swedish respondents were the least likely to notice the 
trial  length  whereas  the  United  Kingdom  respondents  were  the  most  likely  to  notice 
the trial length.  

People  who  stated  at  the  beginning  of  the  survey  that  they  were  interested  in  the 
product categories listed and that they had purchased the product category were more 
likely to notice the trial length in the websites. Also, a proclivity to reading the terms 
and conditions was positively associated with noticing the trial length. The number of 
hours that respondents stated they spent on the internet did not affect the likelihood 
to notice.  

Males were no more likely than females to notice the trial length and older adults were 
less likely to notice as compared to younger individuals. There was no effect of stated 
financial situation on the likelihood to notice the trial length, nor was there an effect of 
education on likelihood to notice the trial length.  

Fraction of Others who will Notice Fee (Q4) 

255 

 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

To  measure  the  likelihood  that  others  noticed  the  monthly  fees,  we  use  survey 
question Q4, which asked: What proportion of typical shoppers will notice the monthly 
subscription fee? Here it is important to note that the regressions estimate the impact 
that the repondnet’s own characteristics have on the belief that others will notice the 
recurring fees. 

The  effect  of  information  disclosure  on  the  likelihood  that  respondents  believe  others 
will  notice  the  monthly  fees,  based  simply  on  mean  difference  across  treatment, 
mattered  only  for  the  physical  products  and  for  all  information  treatments  (notice  of 
subscription,  cost  of  subscription,  and  notice  of  cancellation  date.  Using  regression 
analysis with a full set of controls, the effect is qualitatively similar. People are 13.6% 
more  likely  to  think  others  will  notice  the  monthly  fee  for  the  monthly  fee  notice 
treatment  than  for  the  baseline  treatment.  There  is  no  detectable  effect  of  scarcity 
claims  on  the  likelihood  to  notice  the  fee,  nor  is  there  an  effect  of  the  usage  of  the 
term “buy” vs. “enrol.”  

On  average,  respondents  were  more  likely  to  believe  that  others  will  notice  the  fees 
for  digital  products  as  compared  to  physical  products,  and  within  the  product 
categories,  there  were  statistical  differences  across  the  individual  products.  There 
were some differences in notice rates across countries: Polish respondents were least 
likely  to  think  that  others  will  notice  the  monthly  fees  whereas  Bulgarians  were  the 
most likely to believe that others will notice the fees.  

The respondents’ own interest in the product category did not affect their beliefs about 
whether others will notice the fees. Similarly, the number of purchases of that product 
in  the  past  12  months  and  the  number  of  hours  on  the  internet  did  not  affect 
respondents’  beliefs  regarding  the  likelihood  that  others  notice  the  fees.  However,  if 
one  has  a  proclivity  to  reading  the  terms  and  conditions,  they  believed  that  others 
were more likely to notice the fees. This might happen if they also believe that others 
will read the terms and conditions, although this question was not asked directly in the 
survey. Age, education, gender, and financial situation did not seem to influence how 
likely people were to state that others would notice the monthly fees.  

Fraction of others who will Notice Trial Length (Q7) 

To  measure  the  likelihood  that  others  notice  the  length  of  the  trial,  we  use  survey 
question  Q7,  which  asked:  What  proportion  of  typical  shoppers  will  notice  the 
cancellation  policy?  Again,  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  regressions  estimate  the 
impact  that  one’s  own  characteristics  have  on  the  belief  that  others  will  notice  the 
recurring fees. 

The effect of information disclosure on the likelihood that others will notice the length 
of  the  trial,  based  simply  on  mean  difference  across  treatment,  mattered  for  all 
information  treatments.  Using  regression  analysis  with  the  full  set  of  controls,  the 
effect is qualitatively similar. For example, people believe that others are 4.9% more 
likely to notice the trial length for the physical products when the notice of trial length 
is presented to them as compared to in the baseline treatment. There is no detectable 
effect  of  scarcity  claims  on  the  likelihood  to  notice  the  trial  length,  nor  is  there  an 
effect of the usage of the term “buy” vs. “enrol.”  

On average, respondents were more likely to state that  others notice the trial length 
for  digital  products  as  compared  to  physical  products,  and  within  the  product 
categories,  there  were  statistical  differences  across  the  products.  There  were  some 
differences  in  notice  rates  across  countries:  Swedish  respondents  were  least likely  to 
believe that others will notice the trial length whereas Bulgarians were the most likely 
to state that others will notice the trial length.  

The more people stated that they were interested in the product categories listed and 
the more people stated that they had purchased the product category, the more likely 
they were to state others will notice the trial length in the websites. Also, a proclivity 

256 

 
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

to  reading  the  terms  and  conditions  and  higher  internet  usage  was  positively 
associated  with  noticing  the  trial  length.  Again,  those  who  read  the  terms  and 
conditions may believe that others do so as well.  

Males and females were equally likely to believe that others will notice the trial length, 
as  are  young  and  older  adults.  People  with  more  education  and  people  with  very 
difficult financial situations tend to believe that others will not notice the trial length. 

Table 36: Regression Tables (unweighted analysis) 
Q1: Desire to 
enrol (1= 
very unlikely, 
5 very likely) 
b/se 

Q2: Yes, 
noticed the 
monthly fees 

b/se 

Q3: Yes, 
noticed the 
length of trial 

b/se 

Q4: Fraction 
of others who 
will notice fee 

b/se 

Q7: Fraction 
who will 
notice the 
trial length 
b/se 

treatment (P): info, 
subscription notice 

treatment (P): info, 
monthly fee notice 

treatment (P): info, 
cancellation date 
notice 

Digital Product 
Indicator 

treatment (D): info, 
cancellation date 
notice 

treatment: scarcity 

treatment: buy now 

country: Lithuania 

country: Sweden 

country: Poland 

country: Bulgaria 

country: Netherlands 

country: Germany 

country: United 
Kingdom 

product: Pump - XL 

product: Lustera 

product: Aloderm 

product: Amora 

product: FreeFlow 

product: AirTight 

Interest in Product 
Category (1= not 
interested, 5 = very 
interested) 

Purchases of Product 
Category in Past 12 

-0.056 
[0.038] 

0.008 
[0.014] 

-0.105*** 
[0.040] 

0.098*** 
[0.015] 

-0.013 
[0.015] 

-0.01 
[0.016] 

3.376*** 
[0.455] 

0.527 
[0.392] 

13.749*** 
[0.526] 

2.361*** 
[0.420] 

-0.092** 
[0.041] 

0.006 
[0.015] 

0.003 
[0.016] 

0.704 
[0.482] 

4.423*** 
[0.447] 

0.453*** 
[0.048] 

0.232*** 
[0.018] 

0.288*** 
[0.020] 

26.574*** 
[0.605] 

8.333*** 
[0.437] 

-0.037 
[0.032] 
0.033 
[0.022] 
-0.024 
[0.022] 
-0.219*** 
[0.046] 
-0.448*** 
[0.044] 
0.092** 
[0.043] 
0.504*** 
[0.043] 
-0.415*** 
[0.044] 
-0.220*** 
[0.044] 
b/se 

-0.191*** 
[0.043] 
-0.240*** 
[0.040] 
0.043 
[0.040] 
-0.070* 
[0.040] 
-0.300*** 
[0.040] 
0 
[.] 
-0.234*** 
[0.040] 

0.014 
[0.012] 
-0.009 
[0.008] 
0 
[0.008] 
-0.178*** 
[0.017] 
-0.070*** 
[0.016] 
-0.049*** 
[0.016] 
-0.218*** 
[0.016] 
0.030* 
[0.016] 
-0.003 
[0.016] 
b/se 

-0.023 
[0.016] 
0.016 
[0.015] 
0.028* 
[0.015] 
0.041*** 
[0.015] 
0 
[.] 
0.081*** 
[0.015] 
0.096*** 
[0.015] 

-0.002 
[0.013] 
0.008 
[0.009] 
-0.001 
[0.009] 
-0.105*** 
[0.018] 
-0.102*** 
[0.017] 
-0.030* 
[0.017] 
-0.062*** 
[0.017] 
-0.044** 
[0.017] 
-0.008 
[0.017] 
b/se 

0.051*** 
[0.017] 
-0.057*** 
[0.016] 
0.021 
[0.016] 
0.028* 
[0.016] 
0 
[.] 
-0.161*** 
[0.016] 
-0.039** 
[0.016] 

0.349 
[0.450] 
-0.059 
[0.329] 
0.303 
[0.287] 
-4.879*** 
[1.063] 
-4.372*** 
[1.014] 
-7.160*** 
[1.001] 
3.136*** 
[1.029] 
-1.889* 
[0.985] 
-5.665*** 
[1.021] 
b/se 

-2.760*** 
[0.995] 
2.569*** 
[0.380] 
2.884*** 
[0.386] 
3.921*** 
[0.394] 
0 
[.] 
-0.654 
[0.441] 
-0.57 
[0.426] 

1.785*** 
[0.362] 
-0.343 
[0.282] 
-0.19 
[0.245] 
1.315 
[0.961] 
-2.630*** 
[0.921] 
-2.467*** 
[0.897] 
6.758*** 
[0.949] 
3.811*** 
[0.921] 
2.417** 
[0.948] 
b/se 

1.539* 
[0.911] 
0.919*** 
[0.312] 
1.723*** 
[0.319] 
2.169*** 
[0.321] 
-1.138*** 
[0.353] 
-1.016*** 
[0.334] 
0 
[.] 

0.246*** 
[0.010] 

0.025*** 
[0.004] 

0.026*** 
[0.004] 

0.658*** 
[0.182] 

0.749*** 
[0.161] 

0.140*** 

0.011** 

0.018*** 

-0.044 

0.614*** 

257 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Misleading « free » trials and subscription traps for consumers in the EU 

Q1: Desire to 
enrol (1= 
very unlikely, 
5 very likely) 

Q2: Yes, 
noticed the 
monthly fees 

Q3: Yes, 
noticed the 
length of trial 

Q4: Fraction 
of others who 
will notice fee 

Q7: Fraction 
who will 
notice the 
trial length 

[0.013] 

[0.005] 

[0.005] 

[0.223] 

[0.197] 

-0.003 
[0.012] 

0.036*** 
[0.005] 

0.040*** 
[0.005] 

3.466*** 
[0.293] 

4.877*** 
[0.265] 

0.018*** 
[0.003] 
-0.165*** 
[0.022] 
-0.009*** 
[0.001] 

-0.012 
[0.037] 
b/se 

-0.003 
[0.038] 

0.031 
[0.043] 

-0.199*** 
[0.062] 
0.024 
[0.063] 

0.073* 
[0.043] 

0.068 
[0.043] 

0.126** 
[0.051] 

-0.034 
[0.066] 
1.757*** 
[0.092] 
0.261 
10052 

-0.001 
[0.001] 
-0.015* 
[0.008] 
-0.002*** 
[0.000] 

0.039*** 
[0.014] 
b/se 

0.058*** 
[0.014] 

0.072*** 
[0.016] 

0.039* 
[0.023] 
0.026 
[0.023] 

-0.009 
[0.016] 

-0.01 
[0.016] 

0.023 
[0.019] 

-0.054** 
[0.024] 
0.067** 
[0.034] 
0.141 
10071 

0.001 
[0.001] 
-0.011 
[0.009] 
-0.001*** 
[0.000] 

0.103 
[0.076] 
-1.383*** 
[0.500] 
-0.040** 
[0.018] 

0.008 
[0.015] 
b/se 

0.022 
[0.015] 

0.040** 
[0.017] 

0.012 
[0.024] 
-0.018 
[0.025] 

-0.019 
[0.017] 

-0.014 
[0.017] 

0.009 
[0.020] 

-0.085*** 
[0.026] 
0.104*** 
[0.037] 
0.103 
10071 

0.796 
[0.875] 
b/se 

0.742 
[0.880] 

-0.707 
[0.986] 

4.008*** 
[1.379] 
-1.841 
[1.545] 

0.662 
[1.035] 

1.205 
[1.029] 

2.455** 
[1.205] 

-1.262 
[1.583] 
23.976*** 
[1.971] 
0.117 
53182 

0.239*** 
[0.072] 
-1.140** 
[0.464] 
-0.031* 
[0.016] 

-0.306 
[0.806] 
b/se 

-0.871 
[0.806] 

-2.095** 
[0.908] 

1.628 
[1.263] 
-1.184 
[1.427] 

-0.107 
[0.973] 

0.645 
[0.970] 

2.522** 
[1.142] 

-1.85 
[1.428] 
13.049*** 
[1.794] 
0.052 
55030 

months (0,1,2,3+) 

Read the terms and 
conditions of online 
sellers (1 = never, 4 
= always) 

hours spent on the 
Internet (non work-
related) 

Female 

Age 

Education: high 
school grad 

Education: college 
grad 

Education: post-
college grad 

Education: still 
studying 

Education: unknown 

Financial situation: 
fairly difficult 

Financial situation: 
fairly easy 

Financial situation: 
very easy 

Financial situation: 
don't know 

Constant 

R-squared 
Observations 

258 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or 
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

259 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
B
-
0
1
-
1
6
-
4
1
9
-
E
N
-
N

doi: 10.2818/3605