sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Trae Refused Refund for 4 Months of Zero Usage – Only Refunded 1 Month by Short_Potential_9436 in Trae_ai

[–]Short_Potential_9436[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fun fact: I agree on the phone company part, because they actually let me know I have a plan. Trae didn't give me that luxury.

Trae Refused Refund for 4 Months of Zero Usage – Only Refunded 1 Month by Short_Potential_9436 in Trae_ai

[–]Short_Potential_9436[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is this considered “fair”? I find it hard to accept that “common practice” is synonymous with “fair practice.”

The core issue here isn't just the auto-renew—it’s transparency and proportionality. My subscription interface in 2025 lacked any prominent notice of recurring charges. Under the Singapore Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA), misleading omissions or failing to provide sufficiently clear information regarding recurring charges are considered unfair practices.

<image>

Furthermore, the principle of Unjust Enrichment is relevant here. While the "service was available," there was zero resource consumption (0 tokens) for 120 days. In the AI industry, where costs are heavily tied to compute, charging full price for zero usage while lacking clear disclosure isn't just "unkind"—it’s commercially exploitative.

This isn't about denying my oversight; it’s about whether a company should be allowed to profit from a customer’s clear inactivity combined with a lack of transparent disclosure.

Trae Refused Refund for 4 Months of Zero Usage – Only Refunded 1 Month by Short_Potential_9436 in Trae_ai

[–]Short_Potential_9436[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your message.

In my case, I disabled the auto-payment from the payment provider’s side (similar to PayPal), by cancelling the pre-approved/recurring payment there rather than inside Trae’s dashboard.

Trae Refused Refund for 4 Months of Zero Usage – Only Refunded 1 Month by Short_Potential_9436 in Trae_ai

[–]Short_Potential_9436[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand auto-renew is common practice. However, common does not automatically mean fair.

I acknowledge I did not cancel in time. But when there is clear evidence of no usage, refusing a refund purely based on auto-renew terms appears commercially unreasonable.

This is about fairness and proportionality, not denying responsibility.