Is anybody else bothered by the way paywalled articles leave an unsubscribed viewer with the impression of a headline, but no further context?

News sites already operate on the assumption that many readers will simply read a headline and not bother with the whole article. Some bury relevant information deep in their articles on purpose.

An unscrupulous subscription news site could deliberately take advantage of the opportunity to present a misleading headline, knowing that many readers can't read any further and will assume by default that the headline is justified by the information within.

I support their right to create subscription content, but once they've made an assertion with their headline I consider the information within fair game, and will read the whole article as a matter of principle. If I can't, I'll simply assume the headline is false.