Description:

Members would like a clearer, more formal authorization flow when enabling automatic recurring charges on a customer’s saved card (card on file). Currently, when a card is required on file, the system shows an auto‑charge notice on the estimate‑acceptance modal. This informs customers, but some members feel it is not sufficient as a contract‑like agreement and are concerned about legal exposure if a customer later claims they did not authorize recurring charges.

​

One member specifically raised that, without a dedicated electronic contract/authorization step, they are uncomfortable auto‑charging cards monthly and see this as a potential legal gap.

Requested behavior / proposal:

When enabling auto‑charge / recurring billing on a stored payment method, provide an explicit authorization step, such as:

A dedicated “Recurring Payment Authorization” screen or modal summarizing:

Amount or billing rules (flat monthly vs variable).

Billing frequency and start date.

How long the authorization remains in effect and how the customer can cancel.

A clear consent statement (for example, “I authorize [Company Name] to charge my card for recurring payments as described above.”) with an affirmative action (checkbox plus Confirm button and/or e‑signature).

​

Store a record of this authorization on the customer’s profile, including:

Timestamp, IP, and user agent (when available).

The exact consent text shown at the time of acceptance.

Which payment method was authorized.

Make the authorization record easily viewable/exportable for merchants in case of disputes or chargebacks.

​

Why this matters:

Reduces perceived and actual legal risk around recurring billing by creating a clear, auditable record of customer consent for auto‑charges.

​

Increases member confidence in enabling auto‑charge and recurring billing features.

Aligns CopilotCRM with common industry practice around recurring payment authorization and subscription billing.

Customer impact / example feedback (paraphrased):

A member is concerned that, without a clearly separate agreement, a customer could dispute charges by saying they never authorized recurring billing, and that informal or text‑based confirmations may not hold up as well as a formal acceptance step.

The member has asked that this work be prioritized because of the potential for legal disputes and chargebacks.

Feedback:

"Yes, because I think thats a HUGE missed step!!? How can we even autocharge these people's cards on a monthly basis if we have no physical contract in place stating that we can?!

Sounds to me like a HUGE legal gap, that all someone has to do is have half a brain and say "I never authorized them to charge my card" and boom, youre about as hit as you could possibly be, because you have NO ground to stand on. Text message agreements do not hold up in court.

I strongly suggest that get pushed to the very front of the list of things to be done! Could very easily become an entire legal issue."