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

591–599 of 599 posts

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

#591

Post by margalabargala »

lisper wrote: post #581
margalabargala wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've seen this attitude an increasing amount over the past few years. I think it's the same thing that's responsible for the current US presidential administration.

There's this attitude of, "this thing is partly broken sometimes. We should make it all broken, all the time, and that will be better".

Is there this faith that some higher power will swoop in afterwards and replace the now completely broken system with something that's good?

I think the result will be, things will simply be much worse than they were before.

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

#592

Post by lisper »

margalabargala wrote: post #591
lisper wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've seen this attitude an increasing amount over the past few years. I think it's the same thing that's responsible for the current US presidential administration. There's this attitude of, "this thing is partly broken sometimes. We should make it all broken, all the time, and that will be better". Is there this faith that some higher power will swoop in afterwards and replace the now completely broken system with s…

I don't want to make it all broken. I would much prefer it not to be broken at all. I would much prefer if the courts just followed the law all the time. But if it's going to be broke, if the courts are not going to follow the law, I'd much prefer they do it all the time so that it is obvious that they are not following the law, and then maybe people will notice and do something about it.

The real problem I think is that no one seems to actually want the courts to follow the law. Everyone wants the courts to bend the law to their own desires, and so everyone gives them a pass when they do this. And that's how we end up in situations like we are in now.

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

#593

Post by Arubis »

scrubs wrote: post #586
Arubis wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While I generally agree with this framing, “whatever you call what’s currently holding the reins of power” vs. “not that” still feels useful currently; the empowered party and its ideology are pretty extreme.

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

#594

Post by rushcar »

wizardforhire wrote: post #508
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.

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, Filbu…

The decision is not about whether Filburn violated the AAA, it's about if production quotas under the AAA are even constitutional.

Congress has limited powers, and one of those is to regular interstate commerce (The "Commerce Clause"). SCOTUS decided that production quotas counted as regulating interstate commerce, and was therefore constitutional.

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

#595

Post by GolfPopper »

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…

The actual rule can be found here:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/24/2023-07...

"the Commission must issue a preliminary regulatory analysis for a proceeding to amend a rule if the Commission: (1) estimates that the amendment will have an annual effect on the national economy of $100 million or more; (2) estimates that the amendment will cause a substantial change in the cost or price of certain categories of goods or services; or (3) otherwise determines that the amendment will have a significant effect upon covered entities or upon consumers."

The claim that this will have an "annual economic effect of $100 million or more" seems to fail a simple BS test. Corporations change their cancellation terms to be more honest, which is a one time change, and then keep them there. There is no "we have to work to stop defrauding people again this year" cost, they just obey the law and don't need to spend anything more. (It's not like they weren't maintaining "how to cancel" services in the first place. If anything, this lowers their overhead, but simplifying the byzantine cancellation process.)

The only prolonged impact will be to dishonest corporations bottom lines, not the "national economy". All that's happening here is a court saying "too big and too crooked to fail" and finding an excuse.

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

#596

Post by cyral »

quitit wrote: post #548
cyral wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

>Well, the "one click" cancel is hidden deep in the settings app" no it's not, it's not even close to being deep or hidden. It's 2 taps inside the settings app, or a single tap when searched from the system wide search bar. >Most people don't understand that Apple is actually managing the entire billing process Apple marks transactions as "apple.com/bill" which provides a straightforward way to view charges or reques…

As someone who ran an iOS app for years

- Very little users know this is in the settings app (there are thousands of other settings that are two steps away, how many can you name?). How many people have ever clicked on their name in the settings app to see what is inside, despite it being the first item? Apple gets a cut of every transaction so it's in their interest to make it hard to stumble upon the subscription list by accident.

- Very little users understand that Apple is billing them. They buy something from X Corp and expect X Corp to be able to help them, the idea that everything is really through Apple is a foreign concept.

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

#597

Post by parineum »

gopher_space wrote: post #579
parineum wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is a corporation without any employees still a person?

It never is a person. The Citizens United ruling determined that the people in the corporation have the right to free (political) speech, regardless of the coalition they are part of.

Everyone pretty much agrees with this, The Democratic party liked to push the meme you're repeating because it helped them beat Romney. They intentionally misinterpreted his and the court's words to win an election and people have been repeating the lie ever since.

The answer to your question is no, a corporation without people isn't a person and neither is a corporation with people. The "people" in the phrase "corporations are people" are the ones with rights.

The singular if the phrase is "a corporation is people" not "a corporation is a person", as you were misled into thinking.

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

#598

Post by gopher_space »

parineum wrote: post #597
gopher_space wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a corporation without any employees still a person?

It never is a person. The Citizens United ruling determined that the people in the corporation have the right to free (political) speech, regardless of the coalition they are part of. Everyone pretty much agrees with this, The Democratic party liked to push the meme you're repeating because it helped them beat Romney. They intentionally misinterpreted his and the court's words to win an election and people have been…

> It never is a person. The Citizens United ruling determined that the people in the corporation have the right to free (political) speech, regardless of the coalition they are part of.

Oh that's right, this was part of the whole "money equals speech" plan to get around donation limits. I had forgotten how convoluted the thinking gets if you take every link in the chain at face value.

I find that I'll need to break most political arguments down to the "Who, what, where, why, and how" level if I want to get a grip on what's happening around me and how I'll be impacted. With Citizens United I started by trying to determine what rights I didn't have before the ruling.

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

#599

Post by parineum »

gopher_space wrote: post #598
parineum wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It never is a person. The Citizens United ruling determined that the people in the corporation have the right to free (political) speech, regardless of the coalition they are part of. Everyone pretty much agrees with this, The Democratic party liked to push the meme you're repeating because it helped them beat Romney. They intentionally misinterpreted his and the court's words to win an election and people have been…

> It never is a person. The Citizens United ruling determined that the people in the corporation have the right to free (political) speech, regardless of the coalition they are part of. Oh that's right, this was part of the whole "money equals speech" plan to get around donation limits. I had forgotten how convoluted the thinking gets if you take every link in the chain at face value. I find that I'll need to break m…

> money equals speech

Another great and misleading quote.

> With Citizens United I started by trying to determine what rights I didn't have before the ruling.

That's an easy answer. You didn't have the right to make a movie about a politician with your friends while also forming a corporation so that, when the camera man you hired breaks his leg and sues you, you don't personally go broke.

Before Citizens United, a single (wealthy) individual could have funded a movie like that to try and turn an election. After Citizens United, collective political speech got easier.

After Citizens United, the amount if money spent on political campaigns (outside of the campaign, wink wink) has skyrocketed, that's true. However, the source of that money isn't billionaires, they were already able to use their wealth to influence politics (think Fox News/Murdoch). All that new.money is coming from smaller donations from more people.

Post reply on HN