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

371–380 of 599 posts

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

#371

Post by nashashmi »

nashashmi wrote: post #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 “compli…

> The “complicated process” would be subjective but enough to encourage companies to avoid setting up a cancellation process

… avoid setting up a complicated cancellation process…

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

#372

Post by black6 »

derektank wrote: post #349
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.

People are served by knowing that, regardless of what the law says, it will be applied consistently. It's on the legislature to write new law if the old law is bad, not the judiciary.

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

Anatole France

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

#373

Post by thrance »

bluGill wrote: post #344
thrance wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird how they only enforce the law when it serves their interests though.

That is false. The conservatives have made it clear that they support the rule, but it needs to be done right. The real question is why are liberals willing to ignore the law?

You're completely brainwashed, this is sad to see. You're getting fucked over as much as the rest of us, but instead of fighting back you're asking for more. Purely out of spite and hate for us. How sad.

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

#374

Post by [deleted] »

hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #359
GolfPopper wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's described here is really just legalized thievery with extra steps. "We make it difficult to stop paying us" versus "we charge extra for the privilege of not making it difficult to stop paying us" is just fraud versus extortion. That one or both may be technically legal is no excuse.

It's not legalized thievery to make it nonfree to exit a contract you voluntarily signed up for in the first place. That's ridiculous and hyperbolic. People do it all the time, at all levels of scale and severity. You might as well take issue with the US government not having a "click to cancel" option on NATO or something.

[deleted]

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

#375

Post by John23832 »

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.

I read the article. It is how I was able to reference the "gotcha".

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

#376

Post by zaphar »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #370
zaphar wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to specific examples where the courts interpretation and reasoning wasn't rooted in the law and the arguments from the lawyers in the court specificall? Because I can't. I might disagree with some of the opinions but I can't point to anything where they were clearly not basing it on the law and the various lawyer's argumentation.

That request is a trap and can’t be satisfied. Any answer can be hand waved away with ease. It’s vague yet restrictive.

If that request is a trap then you have basically made my point for me I guess.

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

#378

Post by thrance »

pessimizer wrote: post #339
platevoltage wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

Can you seriously compare the administration building concentration camps, cutting medicare for 12 millions people (effectively killing a lot of them) and dooming America's future through insane spending to the previous administration?

I do not hold the democrats in my heart but claiming they're "both equally bad" is absolutely ludicrous.

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

#380

Post by Forgeties79 »

zaphar wrote: post #376
Forgeties79 wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That request is a trap and can’t be satisfied. Any answer can be hand waved away with ease. It’s vague yet restrictive.

If that request is a trap then you have basically made my point for me I guess.

If you believe the judges are all being as objective as possible and that the systemic flaws in our judicial system are not being exploited by the Trump admin/lawyers representing the Trump admin without pushback from said judges than you can’t be convinced by me. I can cite an example, and if you aren’t personally convinced you can simply say “the court of law said x was innocent or y was held liable” or whatever you consider the correct arbiter.

You can appeal to the system that I am actively saying is not working but you get the benefit of “well the law/eatablishment says so.” You can lean on your opinion or the results, whichever serves you better, in a way I can’t as you cite the case itself. The entire discussion is poisoned out the gate.

Post reply on HN