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

561–570 of 599 posts

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

#561

Post by caesil »

vkou wrote: post #369
rtkwe wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 would this have any economic impact? These dark patterns don't generate any net value, they just move money from one pocket to another. The money will be spent somewhere else, instead.

Moving money from one pocket to another... is economic activity.

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

#562

Post by 93po »

apwell23 wrote: post #269
whamlastxmas wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use privacy dot com cards I can turn off in a single click

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

this assumes you're using it for a service that has your name/address/birthdate/social.

i use it for stuff like scammy dark pattern photoshop trials, and i can use a fake name and address.

i wouldn't use it for stuff like utilities or gym memberships that absolutely send stuff to collections and they deliberately collect your information to be able to do so

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

#563

Post by rtkwe »

kristianbrigman wrote: post #421
rtkwe wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The FTC did their estimate, it came out to less than $100 million so they, to their estimation were not required to take the additional steps of some types of impact analysis and the required comment period etc about it, the courts are disagreeing with the FTC and kicking the rule out. They only have to do that extra step when the economic impact would exceed $100m USD.

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

#564

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

margalabargala wrote: post #481
Buttons840 wrote: post #462

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…

It sort of does mean that. If the courts selectively rule in favor of one class, and we can’t do anything about it, then the best thing to do may absolutely be to encourage selective rulings against them.

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

#565

Post by LoganDark »

bombcar wrote: post #182
LoganDark wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Sir, sorry to inform, but you do this: > I also have a spreadsheet that I log every transaction into You are a minority in a minority that tracks at all! ;)

Well, even just being autistic is already a minority.

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

#566

Post by margalabargala »

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #564
margalabargala wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It sort of does mean that. If the courts selectively rule in favor of one class, and we can’t do anything about it, then the best thing to do may absolutely be to encourage selective rulings against them.

I see why you say that, but I prefer the long term results of fighting against insane rulings when they're bad, rather than the long term effects of fighting for insane rulings on the occasions that I find them convenient.

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

#567

Post by dctoedt »

rayiner wrote: post #290
syntheticcdo wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that the court case that first invoked “emanations from penumbras” involved a Connecticut law banning the the use of contraceptives. Do you believe such a restriction should be constitutional?

If we’re talking about what “ should be constitutional,” we’re no longer talking about “the law” but instead policy or philosophy. Regulating the “public health, welfare, and morals” is the prerogative of state legislatures. So the question is whether there is anything in the constitution that overrides that general power. Resort to “emanations from penumbras” is a concession that there isn’t. By the way, this isn’t…

> Regulating the “public health, welfare, and morals” is the prerogative of state legislatures. So the question is whether there is anything in the constitution that overrides that general power. Resort to “emanations from penumbras” is a concession that there isn’t.

Your comments these past months seem to evince an extreme textualist view of the Constitution's limits on government power.

Would it be fair to say that, in your view, a state government can take whatever action it wants, so long as the action isn't literally prohibited by the text of the Constitution? (In other words, for state governments, anything not prohibited is allowed?)

I'm curious: What's your view of the doctrine that under the 14th Amendment, state governments must comply with the Bill of Rights to the same extent as the federal government?

You periodically mock "emanations from penumbras" — is it your view that the phrase has more significance than simply a figure of speech to communicate the underlying concepts? (I have my own issues about Justice Douglas's track record, but that's not one of them.)

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

#568

Post by didibus »

db48x wrote: post #533
didibus wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's dumb is that no one cares about the 100 million+ that customers lost in paying for extra months of subscriptions they didn't use. I feel there should be counteracting rule, like, if customers impact is X$$ than it doesn't matter what the business loss is, or maybe whichever is higher win, I don't know.

You might be misunderstanding the purpose of the hundred million dollar rule. It is an arbitrary threshold, that’s true; any threshold would be. But what it triggers is just an extra step that the FTC must go through where they receive suggestions from the public, including the industry to be regulated, for _alternatives_ to the proposed rules. They must then go through and determine for each of the alternatives whet…

A few months added to all the subscriptions people are paying for and not using could easily surpass 100+ million in lost customer money. I'd still venture it makes sense to have a counter party looking at the financial harm to the public, and not just the companies.

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

#569

Post by parineum »

chairmansteve wrote: post #504
Buttons840 wrote: post #462

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.

And corporations are people...

Do you not think that corporations are composed of people who have rights?

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

#570

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

margalabargala wrote: post #566
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sort of does mean that. If the courts selectively rule in favor of one class, and we can’t do anything about it, then the best thing to do may absolutely be to encourage selective rulings against them.

I see why you say that, but I prefer the long term results of fighting against insane rulings when they're bad, rather than the long term effects of fighting for insane rulings on the occasions that I find them convenient.

I don’t think we can successfully fight insane rulings in the near future. It’s on the same order as getting money out of politics; disagrees completely with the current incentives of the system and would require a massive political push. It seems to me that the system is working as intended in allowing insane rulings, and that we should attempt to use that to our advantage, since the powerful absolutely will continue to do so and there’s basically jack shit we can do about it right now.
Post reply on HN