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

311–320 of 599 posts

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

#311

Post by sensanaty »

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.

In the Netherlands literally every single store has no questions asked refunds for up to a month. Not that I have to do it often, but for example Coolblue and Bol both offer free returns within a month. Pretty much any webstore I have literally ever used has the same refund policies. Not to mention that the topic of this thread is already in-place EU wide, so there's an obvious win there too.

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

#312

Post by libraryatnight »

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.

A significant portion of this community believes in "move fast and break things," but just for businesses, when it comes to helping people - slow down!

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

#313

Post by gmd63 »

tonyhart7 wrote: post #125
wobfan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not gonna lie, I actually have canceled many service because of this single reason. If I get the feeling they want to hide these options specifically to keep me in a subscription, I immediately feel the urge to cancel even more, and also it gives me the feeling that the service itself is obviously, objectively, not good enough that they can just be honest and offer a easy cancel option - because they fear that too ma…

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

The issue is that many folks rely on and even manufacture financial illiteracy as part of their "business"

It's extremely easy to give people what they want: a quick way to cancel a subscription. It should be criminal to deliberately hide that action behind phone calls etc.

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

#314

Post by platevoltage »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #265
thrance wrote: post #241

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

“It’s like a uniparty bruh”

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

#315

Post by db48x »

eviks wrote: post #117
db48x wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose I am selling magazine subscriptions. I basically already follow all of the FTC’s new rules, because I’m not trying to cheat. But the new rules are pages and pages of amendments to pages and pages of existing rules. Those rules are complicated and detailed. How can I be _sure_ that _all_ of my marketing materials are compliant with these new rules, which detail exactly what information I must disclose to my cu…

> I don’t see how you can argue that these costs _can’t_ be passed down to the consumers. Because you've ignored the profits factor and have supposed away the other factor I mentioned as part of your hypothetical

> The ease with which you can continue to charge consumers without providing value to them directly affects the total amount of those charges (also, profits is a variable)

I can’t even parse this sentence. You appear to be assuming a dishonest magazine company, rather than an honest one. The hundred million rule is there to protect the honest companies from overly–complex rules brought about in an attempt to eliminate dishonest ones, so starting with a dishonest one is irrelevant. We know that they are not going to comply with the rules to start with, so the cost to them is irrelevant.

And profits are always variable, but that doesn’t matter. No matter how much or little your profit margin happens to be, increased costs can always be passed on to the consumer.

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

#316

Post by gmd63 »

Another value destroying milestone of the felon seditionist's megagrift administration

It is trivially easy to capture the intent to cancel and allow customers to execute in one click. Any business that does otherwise is actively expending energy to prey upon economic surplus and add to deadweight loss.

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

#317

Post by duped »

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.

Upon plain inspection, this is untrue.

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

#318

Post by caesil »

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.

If you actually bother to click through and read the article, you'd find the court expressed sympathies with the intent of the rule, but the FTC "is required to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis when a rule has an estimated annual economic effect of $100 million or more", and they did not do that.

The blame here belongs to the FTC for its rushed and sloppy process that put the rule on shaky ground legally.

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

#320

Post by jabroni_salad »

DaSHacka wrote: post #183
Shank wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

It's an authorized recurring charge. Disabling the card only really works for sure on new charges. The only 'real' way to deauthorize it is to convince the merchant to do it for you. Every other method is just creating enough friction that you hope it will be too expensive for the merchant to fight back.
Post reply on HN