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

441–450 of 599 posts

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

#441

Post by cortesoft »

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.

Wait, a stoplight costs $10 million?

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

#442

Post by cortesoft »

jakeydus wrote: post #438
sebzim4500 wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the argument that making it easier to cancel subscriptions means that more customers will cancel and the cumulative effect across the industry will be much more than $100M?

No, I think that the $100M number comes from the cost of implementing the change, not the impact to the impacted companies' bottom line.

I think the other person is right… the term is “economic impact” not “cost to implement”

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

#443

Post by cortesoft »

standardUser wrote: post #383
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.

> you'd find the court expressed sympathies with the intent of the rule And you'd find such sentiments to be completely worthless, except insofar as they act as cover for a ruling on a technicality in favor of the same corporate interests that fund the politicians that appointed these judges.

If we don’t want rulings based on technicalities, then don’t put technicalities into the law.

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

#444

Post by jakeydus »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #382
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.

Why are you carrying water for this? The FTC didn’t make that rule. Who do you think created that rule that anything that lost money for advertisers? I’ll give you one guess The fact that you’re indignant that someone doesn’t agree with the argument is absolutely absurd. The law/rule constraint was corrupt from the outset in order to provide multiple avenues for capital to ensure they don’t lose their profits.

Sure, but that's a different argument. OP wasn't carrying water for the companies that would be affected by this change, they were carrying water for the rule of law. If the FTC had sued saying that the $100M limit was too restricting and had no valid basis, then sure, this would be a valid argument. But the judges have to rule on the law as it's written, not as HN commenters would like it to be. Is the law wrong? Corrupt? Maybe! But that's a different conversation.

Believe me, I'm incredibly disappointed that this didn't work. I paid a Planet Fitness membership for a year after I had moved to a place too far away from any PF location to reasonably use it, just because the cancellation process was so convoluted that it took me ages to figure out how to cancel. I think that companies should be held liable when they employ predatory business practices like this. I agree with your premise, that the limit is too low and there's nothing to stop companies from lying about the cost to implement the rule. But the law is the law is the law is the law. Courts exist to interpret the law, and in this case, the law they were asked to interpret was whether the FTC had abided by the $100M cap. They found reasonable justification to rule that they had not.

Again, I get the desire to be up in arms over this. But recent events have shown just how fragile our legal system is when people decide that the rules can just be ignored, and I wish that people would be more hesitant to throw the baby out with the bathwater, even when doing so would mean I wouldn't have to pay planet fitness $20/mo for a year.

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

#445

Post by Irongirl1 »

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.

I think it was 30 years ago now, but I could be off by a few. My mother "insisted" on me signing up for an infomercial product for her...I offered to buy it outright (it was in stores for less than the deal they were offering and deliver it personally) she declined and kept insisting. I did so and signed up for 1 shipment. They charged me for months afterwards and put my checking account, to which the card was tied into overdraft and refused to refund. I was lucky because I was at a small bank which still had personal bankers and she was kind and reasonable. She reversed the charges for me and got me my money back. That company stole my grocery money and didn't blink an eye.

Again: this was at least 30 years ago. Nothing was changed. The companies that take advantage are still taking advantage and the government is facilitating theft, fraud and tons of stress on those who can ill afford it. It is a major issue also for seniors who constantly get trapped in this crap. They tie people up with confusing forms and jargon and make it impossible. They have no shame. Check Rip-off Reports, if they are still allowed to exist, or webarchive...the stories are awful. It's past time for people to be able to stop this thru their cards or tactical action. The cost to pay a lawyer to fight this kind of crap also falls on the person who files-think travel if they are out of state...most of these companies are based miles away and know that people can't afford to fight them.

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

#446

Post by jordanb »

bluGill wrote: post #418
jordanb wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 qui…

You would have attacked them for withdrawing the rule as well. You have setup a can't win situation and then are attacking someone for losing. If Liberals really wanted this rule they would have followed the law. Evidence is the conservatives when this was passed objected because the law was not being followed. They were then left in this can't win situation.

I would have criticized them for getting rid of a rule that protects consumers, yes.

But it would have been far more honest than what they've done here, where they set up a kabuki theater legal defense so that they can avoid the bad politics of killing a very good rule to protect monied special interests.

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

#447

Post by arwhatever »

ct0 wrote: post #440
slg wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>$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 th…

Seems that the hard coded fixed dollar amount argument can apply everywhere, see small claims court maximums.

Not to mention > $10K financial transaction disclosures

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

#449

Post by bell-cot »

standardUser wrote: post #23

The 8th circuit court of appeals is the most conservative, with only one judge appointed by a Democratic president.

For those unfamiliar - that's one "D" judge, out of 17 judges on this court. And that one "D" wasn't one of the three judges hearing this case.

And yet the three "R" judges who were (hearing this case) chose to editorialize in their opinion ( https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca8.110... ) about how the FTC was the Good Guys here...just hopelessly incompetent Good Guys.

(Yeah, it seems trivial to argue that the Dem's are also hopelessly incompetent - at getting "D" judges onto Federal Court benches.)

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

#450

Post by jakeydus »

cortesoft wrote: post #442
jakeydus wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think that the $100M number comes from the cost of implementing the change, not the impact to the impacted companies' bottom line.

I think the other person is right… the term is “economic impact” not “cost to implement”

That's what I thought too, but from the ruling in the article, it seemed like the justification came from calculating the cost to implement (emphasis on 'compliance costs'.

> But an administrative law judge later found that the rule's impact surpassed the threshold, observing that compliance costs would exceed $100 million "unless each business used fewer than twenty-three hours of professional services at the lowest end of the spectrum of estimated hourly rates," the 8th Circuit ruling said.

Post reply on HN