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

181–190 of 599 posts

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

#181

Post by glaucon »

db48x wrote: post #76
glaucon wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the analysis. Gotta laugh at the threshold being USD100M costs to the affected businesses without the law taking into account how much the annual costs to consumers are, assuming the continuation of the practices.

Why is that laughable? Congress decided that all rules changes need additional scrutiny if they impose large costs. After all, those costs are eventually going to be passed down to consumers so making overly–complicated rules just ends up hurting consumers. And there has to be _some_ threshold number; they couldn’t just leave that one undefined or nobody would ever bother with the extra steps.

What makes me laugh (sardonically) is that I would have hoped that, as well as considering what the costs are to the suppliers, the law might also have taken into account the size of the injury being suffered by consumers. And that if that injury was large enough then that problem should override concern the cost to the companies that have chosen to use sharp practices in maintaining their revenue flow.

Maybe you saw something in the quoted text that I didn't but I understood the USD100M to mean the costs that would arise due to companies who are currently utilising these practices stopping those practices. There's not an ongoing cost to those companies unless you call the deprivation to them of the revenue they shouldn't be receiving because their customers no longer wish to buy the service a cost.

> After all, those costs are eventually going to be passed down to consumers

And when they are the consumers will be able to stop buying off those companies, well, I mean, as long as they can cancel their subscription.

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

#182

Post by bombcar »

LoganDark wrote: post #145
tonyhart7 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are absolute minority that conscious about your financial but sorry to tell you that "most" people is "forgot" they sign up something and not open it in years that's happen more often than you think also financial illiterate is real

> You are absolute minority that conscious about your financial Maybe but idk. I have calendar events for every single monthly expense & BNPL. Anything that isn't on-demand is in the calendar. That makes it easy to calculate future expenses and also serves as a reminder of what I'm paying for so I can cancel anything I don't think I'll need for a while. At least one subscription I've canceled and restarted a lot beca…

Sir, sorry to inform, but you do this:

> I also have a spreadsheet that I log every transaction into

You are a minority in a minority that tracks at all! ;)

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

#183

Post by DaSHacka »

Shank wrote: post #119
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.

> So if a merchant keeps trying to charge you, it will automatically decline. I learned this the hard way with the New York Times doing this, but merchants can “force settle” a transaction if they want and it’ll override the decline they get. This is a violation of the merchant agreement but companies do it anyway (like NYT did to me). Privacy isn’t as bullet-proof as you would think.

How could it override the decline if you cancel the card entirely in Privacy?

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

#184

Post by ptero »

idiotsecant wrote: post #172
scrubs wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 futur…

I think the century of American dominance is probably over. Maybe we can fight our way back to having a functional government, maybe not. I think either way our position in the world order is already diminished and will steadily diminish further. I can see a future where America is a strange backwater, reliant on resource extraction and rules over by a grubby and constantly shifting mafia state.

As an American, I would welcome the world without American domination. Or without any single country domination for that matter. Competition of systems is good for the world.

It doesn't need to turn the US into some grubby mafia state. It could, but I think it is unlikely. But the road for both the US and the world IMO goes down before it goes up as many systems and alliances around the world that depend on US domination shift or crumble. My 2c.

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

#185

Post by reginald78 »

Shank wrote: post #119
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.

> So if a merchant keeps trying to charge you, it will automatically decline. I learned this the hard way with the New York Times doing this, but merchants can “force settle” a transaction if they want and it’ll override the decline they get. This is a violation of the merchant agreement but companies do it anyway (like NYT did to me). Privacy isn’t as bullet-proof as you would think.

Yes, Capital One offers a similar virtual card service and when I read into the fine details it wasn't as useful as a thought. There were seemingly exceptions that could override spending limits for subscriptions and the control was mostly an illusion.

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

#186

Post by [deleted] »

braiamp wrote: post #164
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The FTC is required to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis when a rule has an estimated annual economic effect of $100 million or more. The FTC estimated in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that the rule would not have a $100 million effect. > But an administrative law judge later found that the rule's impact surpassed the threshold, observing that compliance costs would exceed $100 million "unless each…

The fact that it takes more than 24 hours to put a 1 click cancel button is alien to me.

[deleted]

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

#187

Post by fuzzy_biscuit »

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.

I don't see the neoliberal deregulation you're talking about, so I'll bite.

Regulatory capture I have seen too often e.g. net neutrality getting killed by a Verizon cronie masquerading as a public servant in the FCC. However, from my perspective, it's been mostly conservative powers undoing consumer protections. Unless you mean liberalism in the more European sense, in which case I agree.

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

#188

Post by everdrive »

One consequence here that people need to think about is that ALL subscription services should be viewed with suspicion. Once you sign up how much of your life will be deranged simply by trying to cancel the service. It's a hidden cost which shouldn't be forgotten.

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

#189

Post by pona-a »

everdrive wrote: post #188

One consequence here that people need to think about is that ALL subscription services should be viewed with suspicion. Once you sign up how much of your life will be deranged simply by trying to cancel the service. It's a hidden cost which shouldn't be forgotten.

So there's a business argument for this regulation. If the consumers feel unsafe giving their credit cards to most companies, they'll spend less on subscription services in total, harming the industry more than they gain from milking zombie customers.

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

#190

Post by blendergeek »

ourmandave wrote: post #156
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.

> Privacy.com prioritizes security through firewalls, encryption, and PCI DSS compliance.

That line of cyber security mumbo jumbo does not inspire confidence

Post reply on HN