Live data from Hacker News

US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

arstechnica.com

271–280 of 599 posts

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

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use privacy dot com cards I can turn off in a single click

doesn't stop it from being sent to collections. wtf are ppl downvoting this. i had it happen to me.

I guess not; but I also use Privacy.com cards and have never ended up in collections when I pause a card to cancel a service.

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

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The non-Federalist Society folks think that “emanations from penumbras” is constitutional law. How can right wing judges even compete with that? I think we may have drastically different understandings of what “the law” is.

Note that the court case that first invoked “emanations from penumbras” involved a Connecticut law banning the the use of contraceptives. Do you believe such a restriction should be constitutional?

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

#273
ELI5: FTC said the rule is a cheap expense on corps. An admin judge says it is quite expensive. FTC is supposed to follow a particular procedure for expensive rules. FTC didn’t follow so judges ruled against the regulation.

FTC is better off staying away from regulations and instead making a vague rule prohibiting companies from complicated cancellation processes if they are to be charging recurring fees. The “complicated process” would be subjective but enough to encourage companies to avoid setting up a cancellation process (bypassing the expensive burden rule) and maybe the company then chooses a simpler cancellation option.

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

#274

What consumer does this serve at all? What citizen does this serve at all? This only serves to allow firms to erect effort barriers to keep rent seeking fro their customers. The "gotcha" that the Khan FTC didn't "follow the rules making process" is parallel construction.

Courts don’t make decisions on whether executive rules are told or bad, serve consumers or not. The main oversight they have is ensuring compliance with procedural rules and statutory technicalities.

That hasn't been true this century at the very least.

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

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It serves the current administration's in-group: the ultra-wealthy.

Got a surprise for you if you think any admins in group isn’t the ultra wealthy

"this paper cut is exactly the same as sticking my arm in a wood chipper, which is why I chose the latter..."

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

#277
post #247
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. I don't know if it's the FTC or FCC, but the moment I swap back to my American SIM card on trips to the US, I start getting spam texts that I cannot get rid of. Meanwhile I get absolutely zero of these with my European number.

People don't really use SMS in Europe, do they? WhatsApp spam is very pervasive, though.

Actually I am european and use sms a lot. Dont even have WhatsApp installed... :)

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

#278
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.

A Civil law (Roman law) system might have upheld the FTC's click-to-cancel rule in spite of missteps because it serves the public good. But in common law, process is king--as is protecting individual rights (including the rights of shady marketers.)

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

#279
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>probably more so that they don't have to devote customer support resources to handling all the return

Sounds like a win-win then.

This isn't zero sum. Just because it's better for the company doesn't mean it's worse for the consumer.

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

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The non-Federalist Society folks think that “emanations from penumbras” is constitutional law. How can right wing judges even compete with that? I think we may have drastically different understandings of what “the law” is.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN