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

Post by buran77 » Mon, May 12, 2025, 3:08 PM UTC

airstrike wrote: post #23

lenerdenator wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"owner class" is too outdated and myopic. It's also incorrect, as plenty of people born into low income households go on to become elected representatives. It's better to think about it in terms of "people who choose to pursue positions of power to benefit themselves financially while cosplaying as wanting to help the average person".

Post by triceratops » Mon, May 12, 2025, 3:10 PM UTC

micromacrofoot wrote: post #31

jfengel wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember everyone celebrating a regulation from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau back in November. As I said at the time, it was nice to have one of those.

We have quite a number of them, and they're all pretty good. Here's a sample of what the CFPB has created and/or enforces: * Truth in Lending Act * Fair Credit Reporting Act * Fair Debt Collection Practices Act * Equal Credit Opportunity Act * Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act * Home Mortgage Disclosure Act * Consumer Financial Protection Act The CFPB was one of the most effective agencies for consumers

Post by dawnerd » Mon, May 12, 2025, 3:11 PM UTC

jfengel wrote: post #20

dspillett wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by the_other » Mon, May 12, 2025, 3:13 PM UTC

n_ary wrote: post #19

dspillett wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by Angostura » Mon, May 12, 2025, 3:16 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.