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

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.

Elliott Advocacy is underwritten by Generali Global Assistance. Generali Global Assistance has been a leading provider of travel insurance and other assistance services for more than 25 years. We offer a full suite of innovative, vertically integrated travel insurance and emergency services. Generali Global Assistance is part of The Europ Assistance (EA) Group, who pioneered the travel assistance industry in 1963 and continues to be the leader in providing real-time assistance anywhere in the world, delivering on our motto – You Live, We Care.

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?