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

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

#421

Post by kristianbrigman » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 5:45 PM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #342

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.

Depends on how accurate you think the >$100 million estimated impact from the lower court is. When the FTC did the analysis they came up with a lower impact so they didn't have to do it. I'd be more willing to believe they got it right than a single judge did.

Why does it matter? As far as I can tell () the law asks the FTC to do an estimate, they did, and now the argument was ‘some one else thinks it’s wrong’. But does the law require an actual estimate?
If they are worried about this… either mandate some third party do the estimate, or mandate the study. This is just confusing.

() - of course I haven’t read the actual law or ruling yet…

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

#422

Post by hamilyon2 » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 5:45 PM UTC

hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #297

hamilyon2 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not getting it. The rule makes competition in markets higher. Because dollars flow to best offers faster. And thus improve economic situation, not only in markets affected by rule, but also on all other markets, in case customer wants to take his money elsewhere. And on international scale, because more competitive companies presumably out-compete foreign competitors. So, FTC needs some permission and review to…

>The rule makes competition in markets higher. Because dollars flow to best offers faster. That's an insufficiently nuanced view of how competition works. Imagine two companies offering otherwise identical services, at identical price points, except that one company starts to offer click to cancel and the other does not. What happens next? It's possible the other company implements it too. But it's also possible the…

In general the better experience will command higher price, right. That is true, and by forcing same lowest level on everyone we are constructing artificial floor on how bad an experience can be.

Or at least ensuring that bad experience is so profitable that the competitor is ready to even pay the fee for violations.

Illegal markets operate in this territory. No consumer protection there, sorry.

I started to understand the question more, thank you for your comment

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

#423

Post by slg » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 5:49 PM UTC

Glyptodon wrote: post #412

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #346

From the article >"While we certainly do not endorse the use of unfair and deceptive practices in negative option marketing, the procedural deficiencies of the Commission's rulemaking process are fatal here," As with a lot of judge rulings, and what they're always supposed to do, they ruled on what the actual law is and not just on what sounds good. >The FTC is required to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis wh…

$100 million or more rule seems silly when that's the cost of ~10 stoplights and there are like 33 million businesses in the US. But it also seems ridiculous to skip since four people doing nothing but having a discussion about a new rule for 30 minutes across a good portion of those businesses is easily $100mil w/o them even having to lift a pinky besides.

>$100 million or more rule seems silly when that's the cost of ~10 stoplights and there are like 33 million businesses in the US.

A minute of internet research suggests that specific $100m figure is from a 45-year-old law[1]. I don't know why every government law and regulation that references specific monetary values like this aren't pegged to inflation. That equivalent value today is almost $400m.

EDIT: Actually the number might come from a 29-year-old amendment[2]. It is disappointing how hard it is to track these things down.

[1] - https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking/flexibil...

[2] - https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/senate-bill/942

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

#424

Post by nobody9999 » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 5:49 PM UTC

singleshot_ wrote: post #357

evilduck wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FTC have no say in choosing to exist or not exist, or what laws are passed that they are supposed to enforce. In some cases, an agency intentionally choosing to not carry out their duties would even be breaking the law and subject to penalty or punishment. How the FTC goes about interpreting their duties and then the court system correcting their behavior when they disagree or misbehave is the system working as i…

While it’s correct to assert the FTC can’t choose to ignore its enabling act, it’s false to say: 1) the FTC has no say in the laws they are supposed to enforce 2) Congress controls the laws the FTC is tasked with enforcing. As to 1, the FTC writes the laws it enforces. These laws are called regulations. As to 2, of course Congress could write laws that have to be enforced, but when it comes to regulatory agencies, Co…

>Calling for the replacement of a branch of government without understanding any of this would be avoidable with a better educational system.

I could be wrong, but IIUC, what GP meant by "If congress is unfit for purpose they should be replaced."

Is that we should vote the current congress-critters out of office and replace them with different ones -- who might actually do their job.

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

#425

Post by bongodongobob » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 5:49 PM UTC

braiamp wrote: post #205

jdlshore wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How many companies of "size" you know of? Because that process looks HORRIBLY inefficient and only primed to extract as much money of the consumer. You just need to put it in the account screen. A big red button. Your _workflow_ is there to make excuses. If the move was the other way, you would gladly pay the cost, but because it actually hurts your "business model" then it is suddenly a problem. No buddy, I call BS…

Even a company of 100 people should have a change process. I work in infra mostly and to even shut down a VM that has already been decommissioned I have to go through a change process. You can't have a dozen IT/dev cowboys just doing things they think are fine on a whim because you have to take into account what all the other teams in the company are doing. We've got 30 people in our IT dept and change processes are absolutely crucial to not fucking things up on a regular basis.

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

#426

Post by TheCoelacanth » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 5:49 PM UTC

marcusverus wrote: post #397

thrance wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why would the ultra-wealthy be this administration's in-group? Trump won voters with under 100K income, while Harris won those over 100K.[0] Among high-net-worth individuals, Harris had a 10 point lead among those with $1-5mm in net worth and a ~2 point lead with those >$5m, according to the only polling I could find that specifically targeted high-net-worth individuals.[1] It's possible that the "ultra-wealthy" buck…

Trying to extrapolate the behavior of people with $100 billion from the behavior of people with $5 million is clearly nonsense. That's as big of a difference as between someone who makes $20 million per year and someone at the global extreme poverty line of $2.66 per day.

Of the five richest people in the world, 80% were personally sitting right behind Trump at his inauguration.

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

#427

Post by rsanek » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 5:49 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #219

Irongirl1 wrote: post #51

FYI: Everyone just use privacy.com It allows you to make virtual cards that are single use. So if a merchant keeps trying to charge you, it will automatically decline. Until the powers that be gets its act together and stops allowing businesses to run all over us...this is the way.

Then it just gets sent to collections, and worsens your credit score, so your next car loan or mortgage has a higher interest rate. You have to actually resolve the issue with the company charging you, and do a chargeback if necessary which requires submitting evidence. It sucks, but virtual numbers don't make your bills go away.

unless the value is quite high it's unlikely the bill will actually get sent to collections. even if it does, you can negotiate fairly easily with the collection company to pay less than the original amount.

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

#428

Post by gmd63 » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 5:49 PM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #393

gmd63 wrote: post #316

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.

He had zero to do with this. This is on Lina Khan.

His FTC delayed the implementation of this massively popular rule long enough for these judges and lobbyists to find some rationalization that allows dark patterns to proliferate. If the Trump FTC reissues the rule I'll change my view.

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

#429

Post by gmd63 » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 5:54 PM UTC

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #346

From the article >"While we certainly do not endorse the use of unfair and deceptive practices in negative option marketing, the procedural deficiencies of the Commission's rulemaking process are fatal here," As with a lot of judge rulings, and what they're always supposed to do, they ruled on what the actual law is and not just on what sounds good. >The FTC is required to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis wh…

I don't buy that argument. The issue is companies deliberately built complexity on top of their existing systems to make it harder to cancel. The added complexity that costs a lot of money to fix is a result of their unfair and deceptive practices.

An enormous amount of deadweight loss would be returned to the economy if they simply implemented a much simpler design of click to cancel and avoided the unfair and deceptive practices in the first place.

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

#430

Post by InitialLastName » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 5:54 PM UTC

LoganDark wrote: post #145

tonyhart7 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> You are absolute minority that conscious about your financial Maybe but idk. I have calendar events for every single monthly expense & BNPL. Anything that isn't on-demand is in the calendar. That makes it easy to calculate future expenses and also serves as a reminder of what I'm paying for so I can cancel anything I don't think I'll need for a while. At least one subscription I've canceled and restarted a lot beca…

Deep deep minority. I'm similar to you, in that every dollar going in or out gets tracked and categorized, but due to a medical emergency I recently started helping an elderly family member with their finances (logistically, not monetarily) and was astounded that they just can't identify what the destination is for half (by value) of the money going out of their bank account (we're working on it...).