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

US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 599 posts

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#151

Post by diggan »

bramhaag wrote: post #142
Irongirl1 wrote: post #51

FYI: Everyone just use privacy.com It allows you to make virtual cards that are single use. So if a merchant keeps trying to charge you, it will automatically decline. Until the powers that be gets its act together and stops allowing businesses to run all over us...this is the way.

Is there anything like this that accepts EU customers?

Your bank might offer this already, just to check in case you haven't already. I think all banks I've had in Spain and Sweden has offered this feature within their web portal.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#152

Post by scrubs »

b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #143
pjmlp wrote: post #140

The consumer protection laws are so bad the other side of Atlantic. Most European countries, have their own version of consumer protection agencies, usually any kind of complaint gets sorted out, even if takes a couple months. If they fail for whatever reason, there is still the top European one. Most of the time I read about FTC, it appears to side with the wrong guys.

neoliberal deregulation and regulatory capture, not necessarily in that order, has basically killed federal consumer protection in the US.

And it can get worse. Over shooting right (left) invariably leads to overshoot left (right) which we absolutely do not need either.

The American sense (when we get off our butts and do it) is common sense, slowly changing law that always apportions control in equal parts to accountability.

It's the last part that is more galling (because increasingly we've failed) and ultimately will be the more decisive in any future inflection point.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#153

Post by anon191928 »

sensanaty wrote: post #144
bramhaag wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything like this that accepts EU customers?

Revolut has a disposable card feature. I'm sure there's some regular old school banks that have this as well, ING in the Netherlands does as far as I remember.

revolut and others still try to charge you, even if you cancel the VIRTUAL card. when you ask them, why and how they you do that, they say you have some sort of agreement for the subs. service and you need to end it on your own via them. Bank can't do that?? they said something like that to me. So they literally support the dark pattent side, not on your side obv.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#154

Post by ghoul2 »

postalrat wrote: post #47

I should be able to go into my bank or card service online. View a list of all my subscriptions. Click on a subscription (or select all). And cancel. If there is a card that offers this let me know because I'll be switching immediately.

Thats how it works in India: all your "repeating" charge authorizations show up on a portal maintained by the issuing bank. All services that charge via these authorizations send an SMS alert before they debit the next charge. At any time, you can go into the portal and cancel any of these authorizations. No need to talk to the charging co at all, though still, best to first cancel from them. Jus that they know its trivial for the user to go and cancel the auth, so no one makes it difficult to cancel.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#156

Post by ourmandave »

Irongirl1 wrote: post #51

FYI: Everyone just use privacy.com It allows you to make virtual cards that are single use. So if a merchant keeps trying to charge you, it will automatically decline. Until the powers that be gets its act together and stops allowing businesses to run all over us...this is the way.

Privacy.com is a fintech platform offering virtual debit cards to secure online transactions. Based in Iceland and partnered with FDIC-insured banks, the service allows users to control card usage through pausing, unpausing, or closing. Privacy.com prioritizes security through firewalls, encryption, and PCI DSS compliance.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#157

Post by matthewdgreen »

avhception wrote: post #114
skort wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that businesses can build an obviously toxic subscription model that robs consumers of both money and time, but when asked to change it now we have to consider their costs. I understand the idea behind the threshold for changing rules but this still feels very broken. There is a constant struggle of having to do everything perfectly to make any positive progress, but bad actors can operate however th…

While I share your frustration, I don't think we should lower the bar for positive progress. Because that's how one becomes a bad actor themselves.

I think we should absolutely lower this particular bar.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#158

Post by arzig »

sameermanek wrote: post #101
bpodgursky wrote: post #15

From a different article [1]: > But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said the FTC erred in its rulemaking process by failing to produce a preliminary regulatory analysis, a statutory requirement for rules whose annual effect on the national economy would exceed $100 million. > The FTC had argued that it was not required to prepare the preliminary analysis because its initial estimate of the rule’s imp…

Devil is in the details, they said each company would have to pay for less than 23 hrs to a low level engineer to avoid the $100 mil impact. How much time do you think an intern would need to render a button on screen that says "cancel" in red mapped to an already implemented function in the code base. Especially with trillions poured into the AI? This is non sense and horse shit, and these bench full of idiots know…

There’s a non trivial chance this interacts with credit card processing. There is also app the legal liability of you tell someone meet are cancelled and continue charging them. So probably so not something you trust an intern to do.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#159

Post by pimterry »

bramhaag wrote: post #142
Irongirl1 wrote: post #51

FYI: Everyone just use privacy.com It allows you to make virtual cards that are single use. So if a merchant keeps trying to charge you, it will automatically decline. Until the powers that be gets its act together and stops allowing businesses to run all over us...this is the way.

Is there anything like this that accepts EU customers?

Revolut along with quite a few other modern EU banks let you manage recurring billing directly - in Revolut I can pick any transaction in the app, click "Block future payments" and that vendor won't be able to bill my card again until I unblock them. That's separate from virtual/disposable cards - you can use your normal card and still block individual vendors.

Honestly this seems like a pretty obvious core banking feature nowadays, I'm surprised it's not more widespread (even in the US - reliable cancellation features across all recurring card payments would surely make people more comfortable with subscriptions). Under the hood all banks (AFAIK) are handle recurring payments by issuing an authorization token at first purchase, and validating it on later transactions. Allowing customers to see the list of active tokens that were recently used and then revoke them explicitly seems like a no brainer.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#160

Post by boroboro4 »

dylan604 wrote: post #52
xyst wrote: post #40

The USA is not a country for the people. It’s a country for the rich and powerful. The game is rigged and enough deluded people think they can "game" it as well.

This was pretty well established by the constitution, only you left out white male from your rich and powerful. It took amendments to get past white and male.

While it’s true US was quite good on equality amongst this particular group. What we have now is quite different from it.
Post reply on HN