Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 793 posts

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#271

Post by HDThoreaun »

danaris wrote: post #218
the_svd_doctor wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For plane that's pretty unfair. If you don't get any ancillary fees, the price you see is almost exactly up to the cent what you pay. Now if you get any extra, sure. But that's a different problem from Airbnb hiding 100% of the cost in mandatory cleaning fees.

The trouble is, without some overriding authority defining what it means to "have a plane ticket", what counts as "included"? Because anything that doesn't can then be considered an "add-on". Carry-on luggage. Meal/snack and beverage service. A pillow and blanket. A seat that's not a middle seat. Even the ability to choose your seat at all. Airlines that want to tighten the screws on their passengers can, in theory,…

None of those things should be included. I want none and dont want to pay for having access to them. What we actually need is a business that lets you put in the add ons you want and shows you how much that would cost.

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#272

Post by ellisv »

Clubber wrote: post #163
ellisv wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), the judiciary does not need to defer to federal agencies when the statute is ambiguous. In fact, the judiciary can completely ignore the expertise of the federal agency and substitute their own. The overturning of Chevron deference enables the judiciary to first find that the FTC's authority for this rule is grounded in an ambiguous statute and then decide the FTC we…

>In fact, the judiciary can completely ignore the expertise of the federal agency and substitute their own. I don't believe this is accurate, as you stated >The overturning of Chevron deference enables the judiciary to first find that the FTC's authority for this rule is grounded in an ambiguous statute and then decide the FTC went beyond their authority. The only thing the SCOTUS can do is rule against the agency fo…

It doesn’t need to go to SCOTUS, Chevron deference was precedent for the lower courts, SCOUTS can always do whatever it wants.

The plain reading of Loper Bright is that the courts should make their own independent interpretation of the statutory provisions. In doing so the court can ignore the agency’s expertise.

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#273

Post by red_trumpet »

hansvm wrote: post #257
cogman10 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Fees" on top of the top line price should be illegal. It's just a way to smuggle in a 100% increase in the purchase price to get an initial buy in for a product. It is super scammy. Heck, I would even take this a step further and say that taxes as well should always be fully included in the topline price. If a company wants to add a breakdown of how much went to taxes, I'm ok with that. The sticker price should alwa…

Interestingly, in some states it's illegal to post the "price" as one including all applicable taxes.

Do you mean states of the USA or states as in "country"? Which ones?

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#274

Post by kevincox »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #224
cogman10 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Fees" on top of the top line price should be illegal. It's just a way to smuggle in a 100% increase in the purchase price to get an initial buy in for a product. It is super scammy. Heck, I would even take this a step further and say that taxes as well should always be fully included in the topline price. If a company wants to add a breakdown of how much went to taxes, I'm ok with that. The sticker price should alwa…

As a British person this is always so alien when traveling in the US. You could go one step further and suggest that perhaps tips which are practically mandatory should be included in the headline price but that might be a step too far.

I agree that tips are stupid. But they are technically different as you can pay the price without them and be fine. This is unlike "convenience fees" and tax which are required but not displayed in the advertised price.

I definitely believe that you should be able to purchase something for the advertised price. Maybe that is "starting at" but you should be able to check out at that price.

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#275

Post by karaterobot »

If negative option marketing is allowable at all, I'm very skeptical these seemingly minor amendments will make any difference whatsoever. What'll be interesting is to see what new equilibrium companies reach between what they want to do, what level of enforcement there will be.

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#276

Post by mardifoufs »

the_gastropod wrote: post #216
ARandomerDude wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why you shouldn't let ChatGPT do your thinking for you. Skimming is an important art. Her basic points are: 1. The FTC doesn't have the authority to make this rule, and in government there must be a hard line between "I want this" and "this is legal" unless you want a dictatorship. 2. The reason the FTC has so many Congressionally-enacted laws to follow is because of a history of overstepping its legal author…

If someone were just attempting to maintain a "pro-business grift", wouldn't this be exactly the argument they'd make? That the FTC is, effectively, legally toothless?

I mean, making rules that will end up getting over turned in courts, setting a precedent is also exactly how you end up making institutions toothless (see, the recent supreme court decision that overturned Chevron). I'm totally for this type of regulation though, it's just that I don't think that their argument is bad at all.

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#277

Post by [deleted] »

rootusrootus wrote: post #223
conradev wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California did this: > Guests in California will see a fee-inclusive total price—before taxes—on all listings. https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/3610 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

> before taxes Now they just need to fix that part.

[deleted]

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#278

Post by enragedcacti »

Clubber wrote: post #163
ellisv wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), the judiciary does not need to defer to federal agencies when the statute is ambiguous. In fact, the judiciary can completely ignore the expertise of the federal agency and substitute their own. The overturning of Chevron deference enables the judiciary to first find that the FTC's authority for this rule is grounded in an ambiguous statute and then decide the FTC we…

>In fact, the judiciary can completely ignore the expertise of the federal agency and substitute their own. I don't believe this is accurate, as you stated >The overturning of Chevron deference enables the judiciary to first find that the FTC's authority for this rule is grounded in an ambiguous statute and then decide the FTC went beyond their authority. The only thing the SCOTUS can do is rule against the agency fo…

> The only thing the SCOTUS can do is rule against the agency for exceeding its congressional authority.

That is what Roberts' conclusion wants it to sound like but he claims a lot more power for the courts than the statement implies.

> In an agency case as in any other, though, even if some judges might (or might not) consider the statute ambiguous, there is a best reading all the same—“the reading the court would have reached” if no agency were involved. Chevron, 467 U. S., at 843, n. 11. It therefore makes no sense to speak of a “permissible” interpretation that is not the one the court, after applying all relevant interpretive tools, concludes is best. In the business of statutory interpretation, if it is not the best, it is not permissible.

In other words, the judiciary has final say on the "best reading" of a statute and all other readings definitionally exceed the authority granted by the statute.

> They aren't substituting their own expertise.

examples of Chevron questions that are now up to the judiciary to identify the "single, best meaning", independently of agency interpretation:

> the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates “biological product[s],” including “protein[s].” When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as such a “protein”?

> What makes one population segment “distinct” from another? Must the Service treat the Washington State population of western gray squirrels as “distinct” because it is geographically separated from other western gray squirrels?

I find it exceptionally hard to imagine an answer to either of those questions that don't require a judge to exercise their own chemistry or biology expertise, however limited that may be.

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#279

Post by HDThoreaun »

kibwen wrote: post #110
rachofsunshine wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels like one of those things that could be solved on the payment end with something like a unique payment ID for each subscription, rather than giving a CC number. Then you just enable or disable payment IDs (perhaps for a limited time, e.g., "create a payment ID that works for Netflix for the next three months but not after that"), rather than relying on vendors to decide whether they feel like charging you o…

A number of credit card companies offer virtual card numbers that you can generate to avoid giving out your real number. I agree that it should be more normalized, widespread, and automatic, but it is already possible to start doing this today.

Companies can still send your debt to collections. For this strategy to truly work you can never give the company your real identity.

Re: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

#280

Post by gosub100 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #189
pc86 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a great function of elected representatives would be keeping an eye out for these types of businesses that are societal "code smells" indicating something is wrong, and looking at the regulatory and legislative environment to see what would be changed to make those businesses obsolete.

Those who are pro-market probably consider the companies cropping up to be evidence that legislation is not needed (as the market is addressing the issue). I'm not such a person, fwiw.

The do-not-call list was created under Bush 2, right?
Post reply on HN