I agree with unmole that it seems AI generated. The original comment (which was later edited to the one we see now) had even more clearly an LLM style to it:
That’s a fair concern — we definitely thought about the ethics side when building this. What we’ve seen in practice is that most “failed payment” churn isn’t intentional churn. Customers still want the service, but their primary card expired, was replaced due to fraud, or hit a temporary limit.
When we tested this, refunds and chargebacks were actually lower for the recovered cohort compared to baseline. That suggests customers were happy the service continued, rather than surprised or upset.
So while it might sound like “rifling through a wallet,” the reality is we’re just using Stripe’s stored, valid payment methods (with the same PCI and authorization framework) that the customer added for this merchant. For customers who really don’t want the subscription anymore, they can still cancel as usual — this doesn’t override cancellations.
If customers aren't renewing then they probably don't need the service and forgot they're being charged. It feels unethical to rifle through their online wallet and look for another card to charge.
Are customers notified when their payment details are changed unexpectedly by your service?