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

331–340 of 599 posts

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

#331

Post by syntheticcdo »

rayiner wrote: post #290
syntheticcdo wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm asking about your personal opinion: in Griswold v. Connecticut should the Supreme Court have upheld states right to ban access to all contraceptives, including condoms?

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

#332

Post by hiddencost »

caesil wrote: post #318
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.

[flagged]

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

#333

Post by mh- »

julienchastang wrote: post #322
caesil wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "If you actually bother to click through and read the article," HN guidelines ask that you say "The article mentions that".[0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[flagged]

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

#334

Post by pessimizer »

hobs wrote: post #287
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.

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 th…

> bringing up a whataboutism

This is red-baiting.

> while the supreme court runs roughshod over current law

This is question-begging.

> 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?

This is straw-manning.

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

#335

Post by lossolo »

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.

> Amazon and Apple do no question asked refunds all the time

I'm not sure where you're getting your information about the EU from, but I can return any item I order online within 14 days, and then I have another 14 days to send it back, no questions asked, no need to give any reason. Some companies even offer 30 to 90 days, but the 14 + 14 days is the legal minimum.

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

#336

Post by jordanb »

bluGill wrote: post #237
jordanb wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It better fits the facts that the incoming FTC wants this, but they want to do the job right. At least some of the incoming FTC was in place when they rule was passed in the first place and their statements then say they wanted the rule but they wanted the correct procedures done so that it would stand up in court.

If they wanted to change how they implement the rule they could have withdrawn it rather than continue to an adverse judgement in court.

Basically the FTC is required to go through a lengthy (probably multi-year) impact analysis if they determine that the rule will cause more than $100 million in impact to the US economy.

The previous administration determined that this rule would not meet the threshold, allowing quick implementation. The current administration then said "actually we think this would meet the threshold" giving the court an excuse to strike the rule down.

If the trump administration is correct that trapping people in gotya-contracts by making it difficult to cancel really constitutes $100 million of economic activity in the US, I think that says that there's something truly rotten about the basis of our economy.

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

#337

Post by bluetidepro »

Slightly related: For all the crap the iOS store gets for many (good) reasons, this is one reason I actually LOVE to buy subscriptions through iOS/Apple when that option is available for a platform. They have the most simple cancellation process to manage all your subscriptions in one place. Sometimes it costs a $1 or more to buy through iOS but it's worth it to easily cancel without any hoops.

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

#338

Post by fumeux_fume »

caesil wrote: post #318
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.

This is a pretty narrow view. A lot of businesses--whose bread and butter (well maybe just the butter) is keeping people locked into subscriptions they don't want--put a large effort in challenging this rule. They would have fought it like hell during the "analysis" which would have stretched into the Trump presidency were it would surely would have been killed. Even if the analysis had been completed, it's likely the courts would have struck it down for overreach (like Dept of Education's student loan forgiveness). It died because a lot business interests are opposed to it.

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

#339

Post by pessimizer »

platevoltage wrote: post #314
whamlastxmas wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

“It’s like a uniparty bruh”

Actually Republicans are like demons and Democrats are like angels, which is why their policies are so distinct. I am very sophisticated.

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

#340

Post by db48x »

glaucon wrote: post #181
db48x wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that laughable? Congress decided that all rules changes need additional scrutiny if they impose large costs. After all, those costs are eventually going to be passed down to consumers so making overly–complicated rules just ends up hurting consumers. And there has to be _some_ threshold number; they couldn’t just leave that one undefined or nobody would ever bother with the extra steps.

What makes me laugh (sardonically) is that I would have hoped that, as well as considering what the costs are to the suppliers, the law might also have taken into account the size of the injury being suffered by consumers. And that if that injury was large enough then that problem should override concern the cost to the companies that have chosen to use sharp practices in maintaining their revenue flow. Maybe you saw…

> Maybe you saw something in the quoted text that I didn't but I understood the USD100M to mean the costs that would arise due to companies who are currently utilising these practices stopping those practices.

No, Congress put in the hundred million rule to protect honest companies from overly–complicated rules meant to weed out the dishonest. The analysis is intended to force the FTC to consider alternative rules and pick the simplest one that will work.

As you point out, the dishonest companies aren’t going to bother following the rules, so new rules don’t impose any costs on them. Even Congresscritters can understand that.

> I would have hoped that, as well as considering what the costs are to the suppliers, the law might also have taken into account the size of the injury being suffered by consumers…

Yea, there’s an argument to be made in favor of that. You could contact your local Congresscritter and ask them to propose an amendment, but I would first consult the Congressional record to read up on the debate at the time the law was passed. I am sure something like this would have been proposed, and it might be useful to know why the law ended up the way it is. It might just have been simpler to get everyone to agree to a number than to a formula. Eliminating unnecessary complexity is the point, after all. I think this section was last amended in 1980, but I might be wrong…

Post reply on HN