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

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

#281

Post by lozenge » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 2:12 PM UTC

jdlshore wrote: post #194

braiamp wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

We are assuming the calculation for the number of companies affected is correct. If they are using a provider like Shopify or a WordPress plugin, the cost will only be to upgrade the plugin.

I don't know that the backend is necessarily needed. If the button only opened a support ticket/sent an email then the rest can be done by the employees who already processed cancellations on the phone. They just don't need to be on the phone with the customer to do it.

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

#282

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 2:13 PM UTC

VonTum wrote: post #264

guelo wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That commissioner also hated the fact that consumers were going to stop being robbed by big corps.

I find it unproductive to assign emotion to such blatant corruption. I'd rather frame it as "That comissioner sees it to be in his personal best interest to not stop consumers being robbed by big corps."

[deleted]

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

#283

Post by cogman10 » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 2:14 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #242

John23832 wrote: post #236

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.

Yeah, I take a dim view of the courts in general these days. However, this looks black and white. The FTC was trying to rush in the change before Trump took office and that backfired on them.

Now, the rule is good. There is no reason why the current FTC shouldn't implement it. It literally harms nobody except for businesses addicted to dark patterns.

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

#284

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 2:15 PM UTC

malfist wrote: post #214

Arubis wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[deleted]

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

#285

Post by giingyui » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 2:15 PM UTC

John23832 wrote: post #236

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 only serve consumers and citizens. They also have to serve corporations. This is not a flippant remark; corporations also have rights to defend.

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

#286

Post by bogwog » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 2:19 PM UTC

unethical_ban wrote: post #88

If we had a Congress who knew what Signal, e-mail, or credit cards were, then we may get actual legislation protecting consumer rights.

The average age of congress members is 58 years old, which is 6 years older than the first cellphone call.

Wikipedia lists 4 Congress members that have died in office of "unspecified natural causes" since 2022. Aka they literally died of old age while in office.

I don't think they know what Signal, e-mail, or credit cards are.

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

#287

Post by hobs » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 2:19 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #262

miltonlost wrote: post #258

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.

Yes of course, bringing up a whataboutism while the supreme court runs roughshod over current law is totally the point right? We need these stout champions of conservatism because the left is so crazy that we need to check them, that's why we need to rewrite the constitution to fit whatever trump is doing this week, right?

Bringing up the boogieman of the left while the right is literally doing their best to bring the law under their heels permanently is pretty rich.

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

#288

Post by martythemaniak » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 2:20 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #262

miltonlost wrote: post #258

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.

Yeah, those crazy woke judges that think that the government should not be able to bust into your bedroom and arrest you because you used a condom.

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

#289

Post by scarface_74 » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 2:22 PM UTC

ordinaryradical wrote: post #192

ptero wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If it’s not America it will be China and I don’t think you want to live in that world.

Why does it have to be China and why does it have to be any one country? Why can’t it be China, EU, and the US all having about the same influence?

But besides, with the rightward, populist/religious nut tilt of the US and corporations being able to bribe the President to get what they want without repercussions (Disney, Paramount, Meta, X, etc), I don’t see how the US is much better. All of the branches of government are giving power to the President that should be theirs.

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

#290

Post by rayiner » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 2:24 PM UTC

syntheticcdo wrote: post #272

rayiner wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If we’re talking about what “should be constitutional,” we’re no longer talking about “the law” but instead policy or philosophy.

Regulating the “public health, welfare, and morals” is the prerogative of state legislatures. So the question is whether there is anything in the constitution that overrides that general power. Resort to “emanations from penumbras” is a concession that there isn’t.

By the way, this isn’t even some U.S.-centric take. The constitutional law in most western democracies leaves regulation of drugs to the discretion of the legislature.