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

721–730 of 793 posts

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

#721

Post by osigurdson »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #694
osigurdson wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had to deal with credit card fraud on two occasions. Each involving several thousand dollars and many hours of time investment. People should be in control of their own money. The current system categorically absurd.

>The current system categorically absurd. It seems like a decent solution that emerged without a federal government solution (could be better, but things progress incrementally). What is absurd is the lack of action on part of the federal government (which eventually filters down to voters) on developing electronic payments as resilient infrastructure, in conjunction with digital identity verification.

What are you advocating for? A government credit card or something like that?

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

#722

Post by james_marks »

thirdsun wrote: post #702
james_marks wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve looked into this a bit- I believe it’s related to the checkout page loading with a default of “Agrees to Marketing”. What happens- at scale and I have to believe deliberately- is the “checkout created” event with that flag set to true is considered as “opted-in” by the marketing automation platforms everyone uses, like Klayvio. Even if you immediately un-check it, un-checking doesn’t trigger an unsubscribe event…

It's up to the store owner to actually default to "agrees to marketing". I'm not sure if Shopify is to blame when it's the owner that used an illegitimate opt-out for that setting instead of an opt-in. And of course, follow-up mails for abandoned carts are an optional setting too.

The default for “Agrees to marketing” controls if the box defaults to checked on checkout, so I do think if the store disabled that you wouldn’t be subscribed.

My theory is it started by accident- if you get a notification that says, “this checkout, this email, agrees to marketing: true”, it sure reads like an opt-in, and it used to be reliable. But it’s not anymore, because your email is already attached to the checkout when its created.

“Agrees to Marketing” pre-dates the global Shop session by years, it’s plausibly an ecosystem bug; one with no real motivation to solve until customers start talking (more)

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

#723

Post by wildzzz »

digging wrote: post #250
Uehreka wrote: post #190

When people try and say that regulating stuff like this is impossible, I often think about how unreasonably great the regulations around “Unsubscribe” links in emails are. There really seems to be no loophole or workaround despite there being huge incentive for there to be one. Every time I click an “Unsubscribe” link in an email (it seems like they’re forced to say “Unsubscribe” and not use weasel words to hide the…

I'm super appreciative of what we have, but there's absolutely issues. CAN-SPAM specifies that the link must be clearly marked and suggests using CSS to do so, but the link is still always going to be at the bottom of the email in the smallest font used. It only matters for those of us who know to look for it ; many people just have to live with the spam because they don't know it's easy to unsubscribe. Sometimes it'…

Anything that tries to hide the unsubscribe link or makes it especially difficult to unsubscribe, not only gets unsubscribed from, but also gets marked as spam by me in Gmail. I'm guessing that not only does Gmail filter spam by content heuristics (dick pills, Nigerian princes, etc) but also considers the number of times a sender has been reported as sending spam by users. I'm putting out hope that by clicking that spam button, the sender gets closer to being marked as a spammer for everyone.

The one great thing about email is that your email provider isn't paid for delivering spam to your inbox unlike the USPS. There's zero incentive for Gmail to deliver anything but legitimate emails from responsible senders whereas the USPS will gladly deliver presorted mail because they've been paid to do so. I kind of wish I could pay USPS to not deliver junk mail.

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

#724

Post by gspencley »

hobobaggins wrote: post #584
justinpombrio wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unsubscribe links are a fantastic regulation, but there is a workaround. I must have received at least a dozen emails from Brown after graduating despite unsubscribing to every email they sent. The trouble is they're endlessly creative about the lists they put you on. I'd get one email from "Alumni Connections" and then another from "Faculty Spotlight" and then another from "Global Outreach" and then another from "Ev…

They probably don't consider themselves (and, as a University, could probably make a strong case) that it's not Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE), which is the only thing that CAN-SPAM applies to. And I have to disagree with the OP, though, because the only people who obey CAN-SPAM are the people who are generally not actually real spammers. CAN-SPAM really only helps you get unsubscribed from marketing emails, not…

> CAN-SPAM really only helps you get unsubscribed from marketing emails, not actually spam at all

Some of us consider ALL marketing emails to be "spam", with the sole carve out being if the user consciously and actively opted in.

I have no problem with marketing newsletters existing if people enjoy receiving and reading them. But if you email me without my active solicitation then it's no different than a door to door salesman physically knocking on your door when you don't expect it and don't welcome the interruption.

I will happily concede that legal definitions may differ from my own. But on a personal level, I apply the "Hollywood principle": "Don't call me, I'll call you." If you call me (or email, or knock on my door, or mail me a physical snail-mail letter) and I'm not expecting it, and it is of a commercial nature, it's my definition of spam.

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

#725

Post by paradox460 »

Ciunkos wrote: post #390
paradox460 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until the link tries to redirect through their click tracking service, and is blocked by my firewall. Really dislike that Imo it should be a single header that points to a url that accepts a post payload. Email clients could then surface the link

There is already a header for that: List-Unsubscribe with the URL, and the List-Unsubscribe-Post to support one-click unsubscribes, which Google and Yahoo began enforcing for bulk senders in February this year.

Ah, nice to hear. That is progress.

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

#726

Post by mapt »

Uehreka wrote: post #190

When people try and say that regulating stuff like this is impossible, I often think about how unreasonably great the regulations around “Unsubscribe” links in emails are. There really seems to be no loophole or workaround despite there being huge incentive for there to be one. Every time I click an “Unsubscribe” link in an email (it seems like they’re forced to say “Unsubscribe” and not use weasel words to hide the…

A smart person could think of dozens of ways around any explicit legalistic regulation intended to protect consumers, given an afternoon.

Ultimately every regulation needs an uncaptured civil service regulator who can take offense at somebody trying to perform cheeky workarounds and impose disproportionate punitive measures & regulatory adjustments when the spirit of the law is violated. If you don't have that (and we don't, in many areas), then you don't have effective government.

This is why the Federalist Society going after Chevron deference is part of an attempt to overthrow the government; If the iterative regulatory loop demands a full appellate process followed by getting half the votes in the House, 60+ votes in the Senate, and one vote in the White House, then no regulation will be performed in practice. Virtually everything the FTC does is now subject to Federalist Society veto given sufficient time for the lawsuits to be filed & processed.

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

#727

Post by iteria »

commandlinefan wrote: post #701
lotsofpulp wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have paid for everything via credit card for 20+ years now, entering my credit card info online thousands of times, and have yet to have a fraudulent charge. And if I do, I just call the number on the back of the card and they give the money back to me. The system works 99% of the time, for billions and billions of transactions. Which is why it has stayed. Edit: obviously, ideally, there would be a federal governme…

> have yet to have a fraudulent charge How carefully do you check? I check my statements line by line, and have found fraudulent charges twice in the past 30 or so years.

I check every month and it hasn't happened to me in years. But then, I leverage PayPal or other such things when possible.

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

#728

Post by efitz »

Uehreka wrote: post #190

When people try and say that regulating stuff like this is impossible, I often think about how unreasonably great the regulations around “Unsubscribe” links in emails are. There really seems to be no loophole or workaround despite there being huge incentive for there to be one. Every time I click an “Unsubscribe” link in an email (it seems like they’re forced to say “Unsubscribe” and not use weasel words to hide the…

FTC rule is doomed to failure.

I'm working with a state lawmaker in my state to try to get a law to this effect passed, but I'm asking him to write into the law an individual cause of action. In other words, I don't want people to have to wait for the state attorney general to take notice and decide to act (or the FTC in the case of this article). I want the affected user to be able to go to small claims court and sue for $500 or $1000 or whatever. I believe this will be much more effective as it forces the abuser to have to defend themself in court all over the place (at significant cost) or lose all over the place (at significant cost) or stop abusing.

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

#729

Post by lotsofpulp »

osigurdson wrote: post #721
lotsofpulp wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The current system categorically absurd. It seems like a decent solution that emerged without a federal government solution (could be better, but things progress incrementally). What is absurd is the lack of action on part of the federal government (which eventually filters down to voters) on developing electronic payments as resilient infrastructure, in conjunction with digital identity verification.

What are you advocating for? A government credit card or something like that?

Electronic money accounts and ability to transfer money. People shouldn’t need to deposit their money at a bank or non governmental entity.

For example, USPS could provide a constitutionally protected, inalienable right (not even if you go to prison) to an electronic money account, and you can send and receive via an email address or phone number. USPS because there are already physical USPS offices all over the country.

No need for government to lend people money via credit card equivalents. Just obviate checking accounts at banks. Banks don’t have a purpose when money is just entries in a database anyway.

Keeping money “safe” is no longer a physical thing to do. If a lender wants incentivize people to deposit money with them, then they have to compete by offering attractive interest rates. But then it will come with the risk of the lender losing your money, like any other investment.

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

#730

Post by consteval »

minkzilla wrote: post #561
consteval wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> shoehorning abortion rights into a right to privacy is a stretch I disagree fundamentally, but this is where the textualists and others diverge. I absolutely believe our fundamental rights extend to the modern era.

Could you expand on "our fundamental rights extend to the modern era" and how that connects to the legality of abortion being based on the right to privacy?

The "right to privacy" includes the right to medical privacy and privacy over your body. It's not the government's concern to dictate what and how you can treat your own body. The natural extension being that it violates the 14th Amendment for the government to surveil intimate medical decisions.

The "modern era" part comes from the majority opinion of Roe, which notes that abortion was viewed in a much better light when the constitution was written. Anti-abortion sentiment is a fairly modern phenomenon.

“It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect.”

Post reply on HN