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

211–220 of 599 posts

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

#211

Post by claytongulick »

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.

Did you read TFA? This had nothing to do with neoliberalism or whatever.

Everyone agreed with the spirit of the rule, even the two republican appointees who voted against it.

They voted against it because the FTC cheated and broke their own rule making process, they believed it would be struck down by the courts because of this.

They were right. The courts sympathized with the rule, but held that the FTC cheated it's process, and that if left unchecked it could create a tyrannical FTC issuing rules at their whim, ignoring the true economic impact of their rule.

All this court ruling said is that the FTC needs to follow the law and their own defined process for rule making.

They are free to implement this rule, they just need to do it the right way.

While we may not be happy with the short term effect, this was a good ruling. The FTC will go back and do this properly, and hopefully next time will follow the law when making rules.

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

#213

Post by sorcerer-mar »

sneak wrote: post #191
delfinom wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the FTC's fault. The problem is US congress has not functioned for 2 decades. They no longer pass actual laws. This means the FTC is stuck reinterpreting their existing powers to try and squeeze out regulation that they can but that's it.

If the FTC can’t do what the FTC is supposed to do, then that is the FTC’s fault for continuing to exist. It’s unfit for purpose and should be shut down.

Even if we were to accept your premise (if broken, throw out), it's still Congress that decides whether the FTC exists or not.

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

#214

Post by malfist »

Arubis wrote: post #206
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…

When we “overshot left” it was by electing a centrist cishet man who identified as Christian and had different colored skin from the prior presidents. Overshooting right has us building concentration camps.

We overshot so far to the left on the ACA that it was a Republican proposal a decade prior. We overshot on the right and just stripped health care away from 12 million people who can't afford it to pay for tax cuts for the rich

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

#215

Post by quitit »

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.

This is one of the reasons why providers -hate- IAP subscriptions, even if the profit share was 0%, they'd still not be happy because with IAP it's just one click to cancel.

It's not even a practice limited to "shady" companies, the New York Times would let you sign up online, but only cancel via a convoluted phone call with one of their subscription retainment reps.

These days you're better off obtaining a credit card which lets you instantly block transactions. These companies with their b/s unsubscribe gauntlets aren't worth your time.

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

#216

Post by jordanb »

bpodgursky wrote: post #25
jordanb wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From googling apparently the "presiding officer" is appointed by the FTC chair. So it sounds like the FTC spiked its own case.

It was Lina Khan. She just felt strongly about going out the way she came in — losing every single case.

There is a new FTC administration.

I interpret this as being the incoming FTC wanted to kill this but not withdrawal (due to bad optics).

They wanted to lose the case and did so by changing a judgment they controlled so that the rule could fail a legal procedural challenge.

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

#217

Post by [deleted] »

xphilter wrote: post #199
sneak wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the FTC can’t do what the FTC is supposed to do, then that is the FTC’s fault for continuing to exist. It’s unfit for purpose and should be shut down.

The ftc isn’t supposed to create laws though. I tend to overshoot on the consumer’s side, but the ftc is overstepping with actions like this. There should be a law passed on this point and then ftc can enforce. Or ftc can sue based on existing law and let courts buy their interpretation.

[deleted]

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

#218

Post by bluGill »

sneak wrote: post #195
DaSHacka wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who would supersede the states by picking up the mantle?

The US wasn’t the dominant superpower due to cooperation or agreement or leadership, it was the result of pure technological force. Oppenheimer, Teller, and countless nameless others at NASA and Lockheed and Boeing and DARPA. The US built the best weapons, spy planes, launch vehicles, satellites, and communications systems, and was willing to take a no-holds-barred approach to geopolitical strategy. This led to a cir…

It was also the result of Europe (now the EU) choosing not to oppose the US (at least mostly - they did in small areas). The EU has more people and combined could - if they wanted - be more powerful than the US. However they have never seen any point - they mostly (not entirely) agree with the US and so it would be a waste of their limited time to do that instead of what they were doing instead.

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

#219

Post by crazygringo »

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.

Then it just gets sent to collections, and worsens your credit score, so your next car loan or mortgage has a higher interest rate.

You have to actually resolve the issue with the company charging you, and do a chargeback if necessary which requires submitting evidence. It sucks, but virtual numbers don't make your bills go away.

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

#220

Post by noitpmeder »

mrtksn wrote: post #209
mokash wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>True but generally speaking American companies usually have much better customer service and better refund policies than European ones. The issues usually stem when a company corners the market or has no viable alternatives. this does not track with my experience

Any examples of American company having worse customer experience than European ones? I will give you 2 for the opposite: Amazon and Apple do no question asked refunds all the time. Much higher bar than European regulators require.

To be honest I don't think they do "no question asked refunds" for the consumer's benefit -- probably more so that they don't have to devote customer support resources to handling all the return requests they get.

I'm sure you'd soon find it's not quite a guaranteed "no questions asked" process if you repeatedly return large expensive items.

Post reply on HN