US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by scarface_74 » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 12:56 PM UTC

ptero wrote: post #184

idiotsecant wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 domina…

I would too. If we agree that monopolies are bad for private industry, why isn’t it just as bad as having one world power. I think Trump and MAGA are uninformed idiots. But they have caused the EU to start building up their own military industry, countries to focus more on their own research and decouple themselves from the US. I can’t see how that’s a bad thing.

The US has given me all sorts of opportunities I wouldn’t have anywhere else in the world as a native born citizens. I plan to extract as much as I can from it and keep my eyes open to retiring somewhere else.

I continuously vote and advocate for policies like universal healthcare, pre-K education, etc. But what are you going to do when voters vote for politicians thst ars against their own interests - getting rid of FEMA when the states that need it the most are Republican, Medicaid, etc.

This isn’t a pie in the sky shrill “I’m leaving the US tomorrow”. But my wife and I already did the digital nomad thing domestically for a year starting in late 2022 and going forward starting next year, we are going to be spending more time out of the country in US time zones while I work remotely starting with Costa Rica.

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

#222

Post by nyeah » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 12:57 PM UTC

fuzzy_biscuit wrote: post #187

b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Neoliberal" means free markets. Most US conservatives insisted on free markets from 1980 until 2016. They claimed it would benefit the overall US economy (and maybe it has). They claimed those benefits would be shared by all Americans (which listen to them now).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

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

#223

Post by sabellito » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 12:58 PM UTC

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.

Consumer protection laws are mostly fine in Brazil and Uruguay, and I'd bet also on more countries on the other side of the Atlantic.

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

#224

Post by claytongulick » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 12:59 PM UTC

braiamp wrote: post #205

jdlshore wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must not work on these sorts of systems. It can easily take more than 24 hours. In case you’re genuinely interested in learning more, here’s how it works. There are good reasons for it working this way, BTW. The needs of a company with hundreds or thousands of people are different than the needs of hobbyists and early-stage startups. 1. A user experience designer analyzes the user flow and decides where to put th…

How many companies of "size" you know of? Because that process looks HORRIBLY inefficient and only primed to extract as much money of the consumer. You just need to put it in the account screen. A big red button. Your _workflow_ is there to make excuses. If the move was the other way, you would gladly pay the cost, but because it actually hurts your "business model" then it is suddenly a problem. No buddy, I call BS…

So, you're holding a strong opinion about something that you're completed uneducated about and have no experience with?

ANY software change in a non-hobby business goes through a change process.

One as significant as an entirely new account cancelation flow requires extensive planning, design and testing.

What if you have equipment like a set top box? What if a shipping label needs to be mailed out? What if there are state-by-state regulations that must be complied with? What if you have to issue prorated returns of prepaid subscription fees? What if different accounts have different cancelation terms because of bulk pricing? And a million other things that you have to think about, design for and test.

Of course you can solve all this. But it's certainly not "BS" that it'll take more than 24 hours.

The FTC knew this. They cheated their process to ram through a rule. But you like the rule they tried to cheat to implement, so it's ok then, I guess.

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

#225

Post by singleshot_ » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 12:59 PM UTC

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.

> There should be a law passed on this point

Right; there was. We’d refer to that as the “enabling act” by which Congress delegates regulatory lawmaking authority to the FTC.

> The FTC isn’t supposed to create laws

You have deeply misunderstood US federal regulatory law.

> Or FTC can sue based on existing law

Yes; that’s the idea. Regulations are law.

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

#226

Post by whycome » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 12:59 PM UTC

injidup wrote: post #178

beezlewax wrote: post #111

I've used a learning platform called Brilliant in the past. The cancellation process was so convoluted that it was impossible to cancel the account. Dark patterns and confusing language. They refused to refund me and after I thought I'd cancelled and I had to run a charge back from my bank. This is nefarious behaviour on their part and consumers need to be protected from it.

I call bullshit. https://help.brilliant.org/en/articles/741701-how-can-i-canc...

What happens when you click the link in that article?

“You can cancel your subscription at any time by clicking the "cancel" button on your subscription settings page, here.“

It leads to a 404. With the benefit of the doubt, I’m not logged in — but it shouldn’t lead to a 404.

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

#227

Post by whycome » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 1:01 PM UTC

pona-a wrote: post #189

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.

Is zombie customer an official term. And how much of their profits are from that sector? Is this like airlines over selling seats?

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

#228

Post by whycome » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 1:04 PM UTC

xedrac wrote: post #12

I always felt like those click to unsubscribe links were nothing more than a "please prove to us with certainty that this is an actively used account so we can set a sticky bit on it and sell that info for $$$"

It’s like browser popups that only give you the option of block or allow. I want neither! Block means I add that site to a permanent local list and I really need no record of it at all.

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

#229

Post by bluGill » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 1:10 PM UTC

braiamp wrote: post #169

avhception wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The bar should be where changes happen to move in the correct direction easily, while moving in the incorrect direction harder. If the rule was to "force companies to have confusing cancel processes", the rulemaking process would have zero burdens, because the "potential gains" of doing so would be enormous.

That is easy to say. However I don't think you can define "correct direction" in a useful way that also gets at what you mean. Every definition you can come up with someone will find a loop hole that fits the letter of your definition, while it is against what you mean.

By putting process in place for rules we give us time to notice bad rule proposals and give us a process to stop them.

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

#230

Post by firesteelrain » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 1:11 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #131

firesteelrain wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These “bench full of idiots” are not blind to the fact that there are deceptive practices regarding subscriptions. FTC didn’t do their job right unfortunately and here we are. Now, new administration and it’s doubtful this will get picked up again barring any law passed by Congress.

It sounds like they did their job fine. 23 hours on average is plenty. Most companies can do this in 2 hours, and a few of them can spend a lot longer.

Sure, 23 hours on average is generous if the goal is honest implementation. But the issue isn’t the time. It is that companies don’t want this button to exist at all. They are not stalling because it's hard; they’re stalling because friction equals profit. That’s why you get weaponized complexity, endless “design reviews” and inflated estimates. The FTC did their job, sort of. They got “cancelled” (hehe) because of a bureaucratic hurdle.

The industry just doesn’t want to play fair.