Is “opt-out” always wrong? The Wall Street Journal doesn’t think so

By | March 15th, 2012

Is pre-checking the box on an online transaction always unethical? I thought the answer to that question was obvious after the federal government weighed in on the issue, declaring it an “unfair and deceptive” practice, and the state of Minnesota fined two insurance companies for opt-out violations.

I wrote about both of these developments in a recent Washington Post column. A related poll on my site suggested a vast majority of readers thought opt-out should never be used, under any circumstances.

So you can imagine my surprise when I heard from Steve Steinberg, a Wall Street Journal subscriber.

“Typically when you go on vacation, you put a hold on your newspaper,” he says. “When you come back you restart your papers — and you get a credit for those issues you missed and your subscription is extended.”

But not when you suspend your Journal subscription.

Someone found a new way to take a little extra money from the person taking that vacation.

Starting apparently this month, when you go online to put a hold on The Wall Street Journal, the little box at the bottom to “donate” your held papers box is now being checked as a default.

In the past it was an option but not defaulted. I imagine this ends up making extra money by avoid extending people’s subscriptions — without telling anyone the box is being defaulted to “donate” your papers.

This is just plain wrong and an example of how large corporations figure you will not notice a small change and take advantage of people. We have seen this before on travel websites where after you buy your tickets or reservation the “optional box” to buy extra services is “already checked for your convenience” but this is a new one: try to take advantage of people even before they leave the house for vacation.

As a former Dow Jones employee, I didn’t believe it. (News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which publishes The Wall Street Journal.) I know from personal experience that the company takes ethics seriously. It has a code of conduct that all employees must sign, which asserts that its reputation for business integrity is “the heart and soul” of its enterprise.

Then Steinberg showed me screen shots (above) of the pre-checked box.

I thought I’d take a quick look at the Code of Federal Regulations to make sure I didn’t misread the government’s position on opt-out sales. Here’s the rule:

(c) When offering a ticket for purchase by a consumer, for passenger air transportation or for a tour (i.e., a combination of air transportation and ground or cruise accommodations) or tour component (e.g., a hotel stay) that must be purchased with air transportation, a direct air carrier, indirect air carrier, an agent of either, or a ticket agent, may not offer additional optional services in connection with air transportation, a tour, or tour component whereby the optional service is automatically added to the consumer’s purchase if the consumer takes no other action, i.e., if the consumer does not opt out.

The consumer must affirmatively “opt in” (i.e., agree) to such a service and the fee for it before that fee is added to the total price for the air transportation-related purchase. The Department considers the use of “opt-out” provisions to be an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712.

Well, nothing about newspapers in here, but there’s a precedent — and one that any company that takes ethics and integrity seriously would have to be aware of.

I asked Dow Jones about Steinberg’s problem. A representative responded,

[The box] is checked by default as we are trying to increase distribution of The Wall Street Journal Classroom Edition to high school students. We currently serve student readers in more than 6,000 classrooms across the country through the program. Our subscribers are welcome to uncheck it if they prefer.


Even if the pre-checking was done for a good cause — which a donation to the Journal’s classroom edition undoubtedly is — does the end justify the means?

I’ve held this story for almost two weeks, hoping for a follow-up from my former employer. Something to the effect of, “We’ve had a change of heart and we’re unchecking the box.” But no one contacted me.

I’m disappointed. Given News Corp.’s recent troubles, I assumed The Wall Street Journal would bend backward to avoid even the appearance of an unethical business practice.

Then again, maybe these pre-checked boxes aren’t always wrong, particularly when they’re supporting a charitable cause. Or are they?

We want your feedback. Your opinion is important to us. Here's how you can share your thoughts:
  • Send us a letter to the editor. We'll publish your most thoughtful missives in our daily newsletter or in an upcoming post.
  • Leave a message on one of our social networks. We have an active Facebook page, a LinkedIn presence and a Twitter account. Every story on this site is posted on those channels. The conversation ranges from completely unmoderated (Twitter) to moderated (Facebook and LinkedIn).
  • Post a question to our help forums or ask our advocates for a hand through our assistance intake form. Please note that our help forum is not a place for debate. It's there primarily to assist readers with a consumer problem.
  • If you have a news tip or want to report an error or omission, you can email the site publisher directly. You may also contact the post's author directly. Contact information is in the author tagline.