The internet portal Web.de is said to have rejected cancellations of its club via the provider Aboalarm — at least that is what Aboalarm claims. The Munich-based Successful startup The United Internet subsidiary is therefore issuing a warning. Web.de denies all allegations.
+++ Update from 8.2.2017 at the end of the article +++
Aboalarm helps its users get out of unpleasant contracts. The customer provides Aboalarm with the necessary information. The company then sends the cancellation notice to the contract partner on their behalf. Aboalarm claims to have already sent over 4 million cancellation letters.
This apparently doesn't suit all companies: In the past, there have been disputes with companies that didn't accept cancellations via Aboalarm. Yesterday, the Munich-based company announced that it had issued a warning to the German online provider Web.de. The accusation: Web.de doesn't accept cancellations of Web.de Club memberships via Aboalarm, citing "security reasons." However, according to Aboalarm, the cancellations sent were compliant with the terms and conditions and included all relevant information. Dr. Bernd Storm van's Gravesande, Managing Director and co-founder of Aboalarm, says:
"Our users are confused and misled because the terminations are legally effective – regardless of whether Web.de accepts them or not."
Everything completely different?
Web.de firmly denies the allegations. In response to a written inquiry from Munich Startup, the press spokesperson Christian Friemel with:
"The presentation of aboalarm.de is incorrect. We accept cancellations from aboalarm.de. This is also visible on aboalarm.de, the company statesto have successfully completed multiple WEB.DE Club cancellations in the last 30 days."
It's apparently one person's word against another's. The company spokesperson also counters the implicit accusation that security reasons are merely a pretext:
"Rejection for security reasons occurs if there are doubts about the authenticity of the cancellation letter. This is the case if customer data such as name, address, customer number, or email address are missing from the cancellation letter or do not match our customer data."
“If necessary, we will go to court.”
On Facebook, Aboalarm takes a combative stance and offers its customers legal support:
https://www.facebook.com/aboalarm/posts/10154041012116862
Storm van's Gravesande is already preparing for a legal dispute:
“If necessary, we will take this case to court as well.”
The other side, however, is incomprehensible: Web.de claims it has not received any warning letters yet. Since the company accepts cancellations from Aboalarm, a warning letter is also incomprehensible.
The last word in this case seems not to have been spoken yet.
+++ Update from 8.2.2017 +++
Aboalarm has responded to Web.de's statement and sent us this statement, which we are happy to reproduce in full:
"The credibility of Web.de's statement in response to our warning can best be assessed by re-examining the original statement from Web.de customer service, which we have received many times: "For security reasons, we unfortunately cannot accept your cancellation letter from Aboalarm." Why is mentioning aboalarm even necessary if it is actually a matter of individual discrepancies? Would a pre-fabricated statement from customer service then be necessary? And if it were actually a matter of individual discrepancies, wouldn't a reputable provider simply ask the affected customer for appropriate identification? The overall picture emerging from their previous behavior and the current statement clearly shows, in our view, that these are not isolated security problems, but rather a harassing campaign to prevent cancellations on a large scale. And yes - we have indeed carried out numerous Web.de Club cancellations in the last 30 days, all of which were effective, but a not insignificant number were unlawfully rejected by Web.de. Our criticisms therefore do not contradict Web.de’s recent statements.”
At the moment, we cannot make a final assessment of the facts and will report on further developments in the case.
