Live data from Hacker News

US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

arstechnica.com

511–520 of 599 posts

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

#511

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 call bullshit. https://help.brilliant.org/en/articles/741701-how-can-i-canc...

Their help says on thing while Their app another. At least that was my experience.

They refused to refund me when it was clear I'd tried to cancel.

I'd even gotten an onscreen message saying something like "your subscription will be cancelled".

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

#512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So we have some cases where the courts follow the rule of law, and others where the stretch reality to come to insane but convenient conclusions, like in your example. You're right, it's absolutely applied selectively. But, while it would be nice to have an insane, illegal, but convenient conclusion in our favor, that does not mean we should criticize the courts for following the rule of law rather than coming to an…

Doesn't mean much when "rule of law" is just a polite way of stating "for my friends everything, for my enemies the law"

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

#513

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. 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?

Depends where it is. On a military base they can be $100M.

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

#514

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…

Simply because a court followed the letter of the law doesn’t make its decision just. Unjust societies from time immemorial have utilized courts to legitimize all sorts of rotten things.

Claiming that the court is right to throw consumers under the bus based on a technicality misses the fact that the primary function of the legal system in our society is serving the capitalist class. In fact what we see here is not some impartial determination but the court fulfilling its structural purpose by betraying consumers for business profits.

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

#515
post #468

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?

Why would anyone be concerned with the industry vs the economy? Especially when it’s an industry engaged in foul play? Any dollar “lost” as a result of customers being able to cancel results in customers gaining more money to empower industries that are actually productive.

Obviously I agree with you morally speaking but apparently the law doesn't.

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

#516
Fortunately disposable cards can still be used to unilaterally cancel things out when customers are trapped in a maze trying to escape from getting charged.

At the moment this seems to be the most effective mechanism to stop getting robbed.

Some people would argue that you might be in trouble for doing this, but honestly when your time and energy is consumed to the point where your blood starts to boil there's really no other alternative.

I personally do not consume any online recurring subscriptions for this and many other reasons but is common to read nightmarish stories about attempting to cancel a service without any luck.

Hope that things change for the better and courts stop benefiting corporations that do whatever nasty trick have on reach to screw customers.

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

#517
post #11

The FTC was warned at the time that they were flouting required procedures and that their rule would therefore not survive legal scrutiny. Lo and behold it did not.

Please point to an example of these warnings.

Another example from the article

> At the time of the vote, Holyoak's dissenting statement accused the majority of hurrying to finalize the rule before the November 2024 election and warned that the new regulation "may not survive legal challenge."

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

#518
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US wasn’t the dominant superpower due to cooperation or agreement or leadership, it was the result of pure technological force. Oppenheimer, Teller, and countless nameless others at NASA and Lockheed and Boeing and DARPA. The US built the best weapons, spy planes, launch vehicles, satellites, and communications systems, and was willing to take a no-holds-barred approach to geopolitical strategy. This led to a cir…

> It may be that we never see a monolithic superpower of the same kind again for generations. The post ww2 world order was really very very kind to the USA. And why do you think it couldn't remain that way? Considering SpaceX, OpenAI, and Google were made far, far closer to today than to WWII, why would the assumption be that the output suddenly stops?

The US used to be run by people with the ability to think strategically, or by people who listened to educated people who could think strategically. The current US leadership either allows or endorses the capricious whims of an TV-educated idiot to consistently undermine national security and the most fundamental national interests. The complete and total mismanagement of the covid pandemic stands as a perfect example of the scale of the positively massive amount of preventable destruction being wrought presently. That’s just one out of many.

Hard to build high level stuff while the cities are flooding or burning, measles are spreading, the food is becoming toxic, the water is becoming undrinkable, out of control rogue agencies are kidnapping people indiscriminately off the streets, the literacy levels are falling precipitously, and a greater and greater percentage of the population struggles to buy food, much less healthcare or secondary education (or a useful primary education). You simply won’t have the talent pools required to do hard things at scale after a while. This is to say nothing of the complete unpredictability of the economics of supply chains, as incoherent economic policies are arbitrarily whipsawing tariffs around on a monthly basis. It becomes impossible to plan a year in advance.

You need some basic levels of functioning society and infrastructure and economy to build advanced institutions and structures and companies and technology. The US has been attacking its own society’s foundations for decades, and has recently accelerated the pace substantially.

I personally anticipate civil breakdown within a generation, certainly not continued technological innovation.

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

#519

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…

If this $100 million in impact rule is the reason for the judgement, wouldn't that suggest that a scam that takes in more than $100 million would be protected?

That's essentially what these businesses are doing. They're taking money from people who either don't want their product, or didn't realize that they'd be charged continuously.

Just yesterday I cancelled a service, they made it very simple, until I read the very small print that said "this service is paused for 1 month". I didn't want a pause, I wanted a cancel, but how many people are being caught out by this.

I emailed them, and the CEO replied that they are changing this policy. I'll try to follow up on that in a month, but I'm not believing this on face value.

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

#520

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.

Good point. Also note that Interstate Commerce is a bit of a special case. It's sort of the exception that swallows the rule. The Supreme court went for decades without ruling against the feds on the interstate commerce issue. US v. Lopez (1995)(possessing a gun in a school zone) was a rare case where the Supremes said something was not within the bounds of interstate commerce.
Post reply on HN