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

581–590 of 599 posts

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

#581

Post by lisper »

margalabargala wrote: post #577
lisper wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that if the courts only follow the rule of law some of the time then one must consider the possibility that these selective applications of the law are in service of some extra-legal agenda, in which case the fact that this agenda occasionally aligns with the law doesn't change the fact that the judges are in fact operating with compete disregard for the law except as it occasionally offers the opportu…

Sure, I don't disagree, my point is just that the solution is not to transition from "ignore the law most of the time" to "ignore the law all of the time".

Frankly I'd prefer the latter because that would take away their plausible deniability and make it obvious that the court has gone rogue.

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

#582

Post by scrubs »

thrance wrote: post #248
scrubs wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it can get worse. Over shooting right (left) invariably leads to overshoot left (right) which we absolutely do not need either. The American sense (when we get off our butts and do it) is common sense, slowly changing law that always apportions control in equal parts to accountability. It's the last part that is more galling (because increasingly we've failed) and ultimately will be the more decisive in any futur…

Surely you're joking, right? The current administration building concentration camps and cutting medicare for 12 millions people is just balancing... what? Obamacare? Don't be ridiculous.

Take the stupid of the far right and idiots like Trump, then multiply through by -1. It presents differently but it'll still screw stuff up keeping the idiocy in cycle. There's morons on left too!

The middle ground is far, far preferred. Instiutional competency is much preferred. Course correction is preferred. Equal justice under law is preferred.

But as I say under the political noise is a larger problem: failure to balance control with accountability. Congress isn't checking Trump in any substantive way. The DOJ probably took too long to prosecute Trump. And on the right the housing crisis booked no jail time after a run of deregulation. Failure to respect due process or judges orders is another problem on the right. Forget outrage: where are the real world consequences?

Congress time and time again is directly implicated in many of these issues. If Congress was doing its job instead of pretty boys shadow boxing twaddle wedge issues for complex problems on TV, there'd be less of a power vacuum that Trump ultimately filled.

I think one would have to be nieve in thinking the left did not play a major part in its own demise 2016 and 2024.

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

#583

Post by dalemhurley »

unethical_ban wrote: post #87
dalemhurley wrote: post #30

Here is an idea, make your service value for money and people will not want to cancel. If your product is so poor that the only way you can retain customers is to make it too hard for them to cancel then your product needs to be improved.

If your product is so poor that the only way you can retain customers is to make it too hard for them to cancel, then your business model should be illegal.

The hard to cancel aspect should be illegal

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

#584

Post by dalemhurley »

colechristensen wrote: post #109
dalemhurley wrote: post #30

Here is an idea, make your service value for money and people will not want to cancel. If your product is so poor that the only way you can retain customers is to make it too hard for them to cancel then your product needs to be improved.

Ok, but also, I just want to stop paying for things sometimes. Subscribing to a services isn't a vow of "until death do us part" and I don't want businesses trying to act like it is or make it so.

Exactly, I may love something, but have stopped getting value from it as life happens.

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

#585

Post by braiamp »

bpodgursky wrote: post #300
braiamp wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bar should be where changes happen to move in the correct direction easily, while moving in the incorrect direction harder. If the rule was to "force companies to have confusing cancel processes", the rulemaking process would have zero burdens, because the "potential gains" of doing so would be enormous.

> If the rule was to "force companies to have confusing cancel processes", the rulemaking process would have zero burdens I can't speak to hypotheticals with certainty, but a straightforward reading of this law is that it would have exactly the same regulatory process requirements as the requirement to remove them.

Except that no one would try to get a lawsuit, since the only ones with standing are the companies affected.

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

#586

Post by scrubs »

Arubis wrote: post #206
scrubs wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it can get worse. Over shooting right (left) invariably leads to overshoot left (right) which we absolutely do not need either. The American sense (when we get off our butts and do it) is common sense, slowly changing law that always apportions control in equal parts to accountability. It's the last part that is more galling (because increasingly we've failed) and ultimately will be the more decisive in any futur…

When we “overshot left” it was by electing a centrist cishet man who identified as Christian and had different colored skin from the prior presidents. Overshooting right has us building concentration camps.

The dyad left-v-right is just stupid. The issues are complex. We must move under and out of the political bs of conservative v. liberal if we're gonna get anywhere.

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

#587

Post by John23832 »

XorNot wrote: post #276
whamlastxmas wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got a surprise for you if you think any admins in group isn’t the ultra wealthy

"this paper cut is exactly the same as sticking my arm in a wood chipper, which is why I chose the latter..."

I will use this in the future.

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

#588

Post by NoNoisle »

cyral wrote: post #238
quitit wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the reasons why providers -hate- IAP subscriptions, even if the profit share was 0%, they'd still not be happy because with IAP it's just one click to cancel. It's not even a practice limited to "shady" companies, the New York Times would let you sign up online, but only cancel via a convoluted phone call with one of their subscription retainment reps. These days you're better off obtaining a credit ca…

Well, the "one click" cancel is hidden deep in the settings app - and when customers contact us asking to cancel, they don't like to hear that we cannot cancel or refund them from our end. (Apple doesn't even provide a way to look up the customer. Most people don't understand that Apple is actually managing the entire billing process)

Depending on training Apple support can submit refund requests.

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

#589

Post by pbh101 »

dubcanada wrote: post #463
pbh101 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has not been my experience cancelling eu services.

Care to expand beyond a meaningless statement? What has your experience been?

Just that: my experience has been roughly the same in an EU country and the US: there was not some magical interface or customer-centric viewpoint the imbued everything by virtue of the EU.

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

#590

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

Tainnor wrote: post #580
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, from 2018 so they were even more under-resourced (if that's possible). Additionally, the Irish DPC got involved from other data authorities, which may have caused delays. That being said, they were dead wrong not to take on that case, as it was clear violation of GDPR. I actually worked for Meta/Facebook at this point and got drunk and bitched about this exact screen with one of their privacy lawyers. It was tota…

> The conceptual difference here is important. The goal should be to preserve privacy, not fine arbitrary large amounts of money. Like, sometimes you do need to fine people but personally I'd prefer auditing requirements for Meta/Google et al rather than fines. I'm operating under the assumption that most tech giants (and in particular Meta) are doing everything in their power to keep violating people's privacy as lo…

> I'm operating under the assumption that most tech giants (and in particular Meta) are doing everything in their power to keep violating people's privacy as long as they can get away with it.

This is a bad take. They want to make money and make the stock price go up (at the exec level) but lots of people there want to make good products (even in ads). Encouraging them to find less privacy invasive ways of doing this is probably a better approach.

> Since it's impossible to audit everything such a huge corporation is doing and since cases can take a very long time to resolve (after which the damage is often already done), the huge fines are for scaring companies into submission. I am perfectly fine with that, no actually: I wish the fines were so big that they were actually threatening the business's survival.

But it doesn't work. We've had GDPR for 7 years now, and while it's definitely made some things a lot better, I don't see much decrease in privacy invasion from the Big 2 (Google and Facebook). Depressingly, the biggest impact on privacy has been from Apple's anti-competitive ATT moves.

> I'm probably the wrong person to ask because I think that Facebook simply shouldn't exist.

Yeah, this is a wild take. Do you feel the same about Google who do basically all of the same stuff?

Post reply on HN