This review was edited because of later developments - please read to the bottom. It got even worse.Original: Horrendous/ridiculous cancellation process. Just like most other reviewers, I am appalled at the cancellation process that I had to endure. To be honest, this was so dishonest and unhelpful that I wonder if it is even legal. I asked three times to cancel and three times they came back with some offer that I do not want or need. Up until the point, that I asked point blank if they were refusing to honour my request and then they finally complied (Edit - they didn't, please see below). I have taken screenshots and was ready to lodge a complaint with my credit card company for predatory credit card (renewal) practices. To be honest what they do is so bad that credit card companies should start banning The Economist. The fact that the company acts like this really puts into question their corporate values because this is very deliberate and shows complete disrespect for its customers.Edit - When I checked my subscription page some days later, it became clear that the first "support person" had not cancelled the subscription, but merely cancelled the autorenewal. (remember, I have screenshots to prove that that was not my request) I guess that trick allowed him/her/the AI in the contact center to manipulate his statistics and trick the Economist into believing that he managed to salvage the subscription. As a consequence, I had to contact the Economist again to ask them to cancel that subscription - again - and go through the same messaging hell. Since a week had passed, they only refunded me partially "for the remaining portion of the sub". This is so dishonest. It was clearly not a misunderstanding and a deliberate action by the contact center operator.I am making this edit for two reasons: One, to warn people about the degree of dishonesty that is at play. In a despicable way, this is very smart. People think the matter is resolved and will only realise some time later that it actually wasn't. In that period, The Economist lets the subscription run and you pay...The second reason for this is edited review is more important: If this is more than a "honest mistake" and there is a pattern of systematic customer abuse, then I want my case to be in the public domain. Please feel free to contact me. I will gladly provide the screenshots to help to prove that this was not a "honest mistake", but in fact a pattern... Given that there is a clear economic motive, I doubt that this was a "honest mistake". Last point - please make screenshots of your interactions with The Economist. They do not deserve your trust
