The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule • Hacker News Board

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#11

Post by doctoboggan » Mon, May 12, 2025, 2:29 PM UTC

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #7

sillystu04 wrote: post #5

Visa/Mastercard have enough power to enforce this on their own. Although obviously regulation would've been better. If a bunch of elected officials wrote letters to execs and a couple of NYT articles were written about the issue, Visa/Mastercard might be motivated to help.

Why? They get revenue from unwanted transactions too.

Those transactions might have a higher than normal chargeback rate which could motivate them to get rid of them. It could also be a perk of the card, they could provide a subscription cancellation portal on their website.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#12

Post by notfromhere » Mon, May 12, 2025, 2:31 PM UTC

tantalor wrote: post #9

> the burdens that forcing compliance by this date would impose With no consideration given to how consumers may be harmed by non-enforcement meanwhile.

[flagged]

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#13

Post by bee_rider » Mon, May 12, 2025, 2:36 PM UTC

With all the dark patterns and bullshit in every service, it has become too difficult to pay for things. Even services I like, and I think are run by ethical people—you never know who’ll get bought.

Of course, like everybody else, I block ads. Although, when I didn’t I didn’t click on the things anyway.

I dunno. For a while I felt bad consuming stuff without paying. But in the end, the internet has become so hostile and manipulative, I guess… I’m just going to wait it out. Eventually hopefully it will all collapse and a viable business model will be discovered.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#14

Post by dspillett » Mon, May 12, 2025, 2:39 PM UTC

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #7

sillystu04 wrote: post #5

Visa/Mastercard have enough power to enforce this on their own. Although obviously regulation would've been better. If a bunch of elected officials wrote letters to execs and a couple of NYT articles were written about the issue, Visa/Mastercard might be motivated to help.

Why? They get revenue from unwanted transactions too.

Chargebacks might upset that being a big benefit, and being the firm that takes a stance for customer care could be good advertising fodder. Though I don't see it working unless they both do it in step which minimises the useful effect of that against each other. It could still be a benefit vs other payment methods, what is PayPal's policy on such things?

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#15

Post by brador » Mon, May 12, 2025, 2:40 PM UTC

A better system idea - every data point of user data needs a datetime stamp and source.

Any request for your own private data will then come with datetime stamps and source origins for every piece of data they have of you.

Thereby allowing you to cut off at the source and request deletion, which they must then propagate upstream or risk a fine per data point.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#16

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 12, 2025, 2:40 PM UTC

lenerdenator wrote: post #4

RankingMember wrote: post #3

That symmetrical registration/cancellation is being slow-walked like this is absurd (but under this admin, certainly not surprising).

It's absurd if you believe the point of government is to be by, for, and of the people. If you see government as a way to enhance the ability of the owner class to enrich themselves, it makes perfect sense.

[deleted]

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#17

Post by gsanderson » Mon, May 12, 2025, 2:41 PM UTC

sillystu04 wrote: post #5

Visa/Mastercard have enough power to enforce this on their own. Although obviously regulation would've been better. If a bunch of elected officials wrote letters to execs and a couple of NYT articles were written about the issue, Visa/Mastercard might be motivated to help.

Regulation? Unfortunately this administration is going in the opposite direction.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#18

Post by sorcerer-mar » Mon, May 12, 2025, 2:41 PM UTC

doctoboggan wrote: post #11

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? They get revenue from unwanted transactions too.

Those transactions might have a higher than normal chargeback rate which could motivate them to get rid of them. It could also be a perk of the card, they could provide a subscription cancellation portal on their website.

That would definitely be a huge perk to me!

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#19

Post by n_ary » Mon, May 12, 2025, 2:45 PM UTC

dspillett wrote: post #14

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? They get revenue from unwanted transactions too.

Chargebacks might upset that being a big benefit, and being the firm that takes a stance for customer care could be good advertising fodder. Though I don't see it working unless they both do it in step which minimises the useful effect of that against each other. It could still be a benefit vs other payment methods, what is PayPal's policy on such things?

Number of people afraid to pickup the phone and talk to another human being instead of letting few hundred in forgotten subscription is larger than I previously thought. By that sense, without any data, I suspect that chargeback amount is wayyyy smaller headache compared to txn fees from forgotten uncancelled subscriptions.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#20

Post by jfengel » Mon, May 12, 2025, 2:47 PM UTC

dspillett wrote: post #14

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? They get revenue from unwanted transactions too.

Chargebacks might upset that being a big benefit, and being the firm that takes a stance for customer care could be good advertising fodder. Though I don't see it working unless they both do it in step which minimises the useful effect of that against each other. It could still be a benefit vs other payment methods, what is PayPal's policy on such things?

Visa and MasterCard suffer from charge backs already, and don't seem to mind. They try to avoid it with AI in the fraud department, and they push some of the cost onto the merchants.

They could do so much more. We still don't even have chip and pin in the US. They seem to think that the current levels of fraud loss are cheaper than the business lost from stopping it.