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

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

#501

Post by didibus » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 8:43 PM UTC

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 don't understand, they did an estimate and found it below 100$ million. That seems to have followed the process. An estimate can always be challenged and is just a best effort prediction. Now it seems this create a pretty flaky ground for precedence that the FTC simply can never estimate less than 100$ million as it could always be challenged in court, what if it was more? And they now have to always follow the more effortful process of assuming it is more than 100$ million.

It really seems like a weird line in the sand that the court will just randomly decide on a case by case now, with the FTC having no way to know if the court will agree with their estimate or not.

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

#502

Post by beezlewax » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 8:44 PM UTC

trueismywork wrote: post #161

beezlewax wrote: post #111

I've used a learning platform called Brilliant in the past. The cancellation process was so convoluted that it was impossible to cancel the account. Dark patterns and confusing language. They refused to refund me and after I thought I'd cancelled and I had to run a charge back from my bank. This is nefarious behaviour on their part and consumers need to be protected from it.

In contrast in EU, I sent an email to my service to cancel and they forgot to cancel. I just sent them another email with proof of email and they realised they missed the old one and canceled retroactively and refunded money to my account.

I am in the EU.

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

#503

Post by chairmansteve » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 8:46 PM UTC

Whatever about the legal minutae, this is a bit of an own goal for the plantiffs. People are becoming more and more wary of signing up for subscriptions.

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

#504

Post by chairmansteve » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 8:47 PM UTC

Buttons840 wrote: post #462

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…

While the courts, supposedly, focus on what the law actually says, remember that Wickard v Filburn (1942) established that growing a plant on your own property for your own personal use is "interstate commerce". I don't know a lot about law, but I at least know that ruling on what the "actual law is" is selective, and usually selective in a way that is beneficial for the rich and powerful.

And corporations are people...

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

#505

Post by trelane » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 8:47 PM UTC

irrational wrote: post #486

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…

From what we’ve seen recently, the federal government and federal agencies are no longer following the law, not even the constitution. I’m not sure what makes this case unique.

"No longer?!"

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

#506

Post by beezlewax » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 8:48 PM UTC

ethagnawl wrote: post #435

beezlewax wrote: post #111

I've used a learning platform called Brilliant in the past. The cancellation process was so convoluted that it was impossible to cancel the account. Dark patterns and confusing language. They refused to refund me and after I thought I'd cancelled and I had to run a charge back from my bank. This is nefarious behaviour on their part and consumers need to be protected from it.

I learned the hard way that they also bill annually by default. As soon as my family's week long trial was up, they billed me for an entire year. Yes, it's on me for not reading the T&C (I was hastily trying to find an activity for my kid which was somewhat constructive ...) but I just don't understand this race-to-the-bottom/rent-seeking behavior. There was once a possibility that I'd renew our membership and recomm…

It's not really on you though.. they word things in a way that'd makes it less than obvious what you're signing up for. Then they make cancelling difficult.

It all done in bad faith and an instant black mark against any company.

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

#507

Post by db48x » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 8:50 PM UTC

privatelypublic wrote: post #458

db48x wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A trivial search will get you the court opinion itself https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/07/243137P.pdf >, so regardless of how bad the news article is you should not be uninformed. From the abstract: …the Commission failed to follow procedural requirements under § 22 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 57b-3(b)(1) A more detailed explanation: The Commission’s formal rulemaking authority…

Thank you! I haven't a way with words to explain this in such a way. I saw that the article quoted the opinion as being based on "they didn't do a study for more than $100m impact, and I find that unlikely. It'd be interesting/debatable if this was a "look, this was never legal- now we're just painting a bullseye on people doing it- the 100m impact isn't needed" And the judge went with 100m impact anyway. But that's…

You’re welcome.

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

#508

Post by wizardforhire » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 8:51 PM UTC

Buttons840 wrote: post #462

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…

While the courts, supposedly, focus on what the law actually says, remember that Wickard v Filburn (1942) established that growing a plant on your own property for your own personal use is "interstate commerce". I don't know a lot about law, but I at least know that ruling on what the "actual law is" is selective, and usually selective in a way that is beneficial for the rich and powerful.

From wikipedia:

In July 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1938, Filburn's 1941 allotment was established at 11.1 acres (4.5 ha) and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre (1.4 metric tons per hectare). Filburn was given notice of the allotment in July 1940, before the fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July 1941, before it was harvested. Despite the notices, Filburn planted 23 acres (9.3 ha) and harvested 239 more bushels (6,500 kg) than was allowed from his 11.9 acres (4.8 ha) of excess area.

I don’t agree with the ruling or implications of this case, that said it was a clear ruling of technicalities.

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

#509

Post by beezlewax » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 8:52 PM UTC

fuzztester wrote: post #129

beezlewax wrote: post #111

I've used a learning platform called Brilliant in the past. The cancellation process was so convoluted that it was impossible to cancel the account. Dark patterns and confusing language. They refused to refund me and after I thought I'd cancelled and I had to run a charge back from my bank. This is nefarious behaviour on their part and consumers need to be protected from it.

Do you mean brilliant.org ?

Yes

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

#510

Post by apwell23 » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 8:56 PM UTC

rsanek wrote: post #416

apwell23 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

doesn't stop it from being sent to collections. wtf are ppl downvoting this. i had it happen to me.

once something is in collections, you can negotiate to pay a fraction of the original price. it's actually harder to do so before then. or, you can just not pay even through collections. rarely does it impact credit score (much). lots of kinds of debt even legally can't (eg <$500 medical debt)

> you can negotiate to pay a fraction of the original price.

what gives you the negotiating power ? they can simply dock you on your credit report. thats what comcast did to me. they didn't care about negotiating