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

Obviously, this would be much different putting a $1,000+ business SaaS subscription on a credit card vs. a $10/month consumer product.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Savings_S...

While I generally agree with your opinion, the case is that bad actors are using the unsubscribe link to identify real email addresses. The vast majority of people do not match what I imagine might be the average HN tech-savvy audience.

They get an email they don't want and click on "Unsubscribe" to get rid of it. What they don't know is that they have been added to a database of "live" emails to be sold and reused for all sorts of purposes from that point forward.

In other words, as is the case for many laws, they keep honest people honest. You do not control criminals with laws until the result of the law is that they end-up in prison (or whatever the appropriate punishment might be).

I ran an experiment during the last presidential election (US). I used two separate throw-away emails to subscribe to updates from both the Republican and Democratic parties. I used these emails directly on the main organization pages. I also setup filters to sort all incoming emails into two separate folders.

A year later I deleted both email accounts and the tens of thousands of messages on both folders. It was an interesting game of whack-a-mole. Clicking on "unsubscribe" had no real effect. Both parties passed this email to, it seemed, everyone except for the local school janitor. It was nothing less than insane. There was no effective way to make it stop. I unsubscribed from both main organizations. That did nothing at all.

My conclusion was that, while "Unsubscribe" sounds good and looks useful, it only works with non-criminal organizations (sorry, I consider political parties to be at the threshold of being criminal organizations). It's like a lock on a door, or, to use a more provocative example, a gun. The laws surrounding these things only get respect from honest law-abiding people. A criminal will gladly take a crowbar to your door-lock and break into your home, or use a gun to do the same or worse.

Going back to unsolicited emails (and by extension SMS), not sure how we fix this in real terms. It's a really difficult problem.

While the FTC's intention to protect consumers is commendable, this new "click-to-cancel" rule may have unintended consequences that could harm both businesses and consumers. Here are some key points of dissent:

1. *Overreach of Regulatory Authority*: The FTC's broad application of this rule to "almost all negative option programs in any media" may exceed its statutory authority. This sweeping approach could face legal challenges.

2. *Increased Costs for Businesses*: Implementing new cancellation systems and processes could be costly, especially for small businesses. These costs may ultimately be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

3. *Potential for Increased Fraud*: Making cancellation too easy might inadvertently increase the risk of unauthorized cancellations by bad actors, leading to service disruptions for legitimate subscribers.

4. *Loss of Customer Retention Opportunities*: By prohibiting businesses from discussing plan modifications or reasons to keep existing agreements during cancellation, the rule may deprive consumers of potentially beneficial alternatives or information.

5. *Inconsistency with Other Industries*: The rule may create an uneven playing field, as some industries (like telecommunications or utilities) often have different cancellation processes due to the nature of their services.

6. *Consumer Responsibility*: The rule may unfairly shift the burden of subscription management entirely onto businesses, potentially reducing consumer responsibility and awareness.

7. *Innovation Stifling*: Strict regulations on subscription models could discourage innovation in service offerings and pricing structures that might benefit consumers.

8. *Compliance Challenges*: The 180-day implementation period may not be sufficient for all businesses to comply, especially given the broad scope of the rule.

While consumer protection is crucial, a more balanced approach that considers the needs of both consumers and businesses might be more effective. The FTC should consider a more nuanced rule that addresses specific abusive practices rather than imposing broad restrictions on all negative option programs.