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

161–170 of 599 posts

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

#161

Post by trueismywork »

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.

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

#162

Post by pimterry »

nico wrote: post #63
missedthecue wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a recurring charge on my Capital One credit card and canceled it from my Capital One app. The next month, the charge went through again and they proactively gave me an account credit equal to the charged amount, with an emailed apology. I'm not sure why they couldn't cancel it, or if it will go through again this month, but it surprised me!

I had a subscription with an account that I couldn’t access anymore, and there wasn’t any other way to cancel So I contested the charge through the bank. They would refund me, but then the company would charge me again for the subscription This went on for several months. At some point the card expired, the bank automatically sent me a new card, and somehow the company was still able to charge the subscription to my…

The company doesn't actually keep your card details at all (at least, all reputable companies). They take the details to the payment processor at first purchase, but they then get swapped for a token which can be used to process transactions (usable only for transactions to you by this one vendor, so tokens can't be stolen/leaked, unlike card details) and then future transactions all just use the token.

When your card details change, all issued tokens generally stay valid, they're effectively independent. A payment card is basically an initial authentication process for the account, it's not really the payment method.

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

#164

Post by braiamp »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #150
hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please point to an example of these warnings.

> The FTC is required to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis when a rule has an estimated annual economic effect of $100 million or more. The FTC estimated in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that the rule would not have a $100 million effect. > But an administrative law judge later found that the rule's impact surpassed the threshold, observing that compliance costs would exceed $100 million "unless each…

The fact that it takes more than 24 hours to put a 1 click cancel button is alien to me.

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

#165

Post by delfinom »

pjmlp wrote: post #140

The consumer protection laws are so bad the other side of Atlantic. Most European countries, have their own version of consumer protection agencies, usually any kind of complaint gets sorted out, even if takes a couple months. If they fail for whatever reason, there is still the top European one. Most of the time I read about FTC, it appears to side with the wrong guys.

Not the FTC's fault.

The problem is US congress has not functioned for 2 decades. They no longer pass actual laws. This means the FTC is stuck reinterpreting their existing powers to try and squeeze out regulation that they can but that's it.

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

#166

Post by Hnrobert42 »

guelo wrote: post #130
fwlr wrote: 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.

who warned them?

A then-commissioner who is now the head of the FTC.

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

#167

Post by delfinom »

braiamp wrote: post #164
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The FTC is required to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis when a rule has an estimated annual economic effect of $100 million or more. The FTC estimated in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that the rule would not have a $100 million effect. > But an administrative law judge later found that the rule's impact surpassed the threshold, observing that compliance costs would exceed $100 million "unless each…

The fact that it takes more than 24 hours to put a 1 click cancel button is alien to me.

Well, after you factor in some of these companies are probably large corps with layers of middle management. It will probably require at least 3 months of premeetings

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

#168

Post by Hnrobert42 »

mrheosuper wrote: post #118
Irongirl1 wrote: post #51

FYI: Everyone just use privacy.com It allows you to make virtual cards that are single use. So if a merchant keeps trying to charge you, it will automatically decline. Until the powers that be gets its act together and stops allowing businesses to run all over us...this is the way.

Great, another service that collects my purchase information.

This is why I've never used these services.

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

#169

Post by braiamp »

avhception wrote: post #114
skort wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that businesses can build an obviously toxic subscription model that robs consumers of both money and time, but when asked to change it now we have to consider their costs. I understand the idea behind the threshold for changing rules but this still feels very broken. There is a constant struggle of having to do everything perfectly to make any positive progress, but bad actors can operate however th…

While I share your frustration, I don't think we should lower the bar for positive progress. Because that's how one becomes a bad actor themselves.

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.

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

#170

Post by roenxi »

immibis wrote: post #135
avhception wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I share your frustration, I don't think we should lower the bar for positive progress. Because that's how one becomes a bad actor themselves.

When bad actors have a low bar but good actors have a high bar, the country is bound to collapse. Look at how many rules the current regime is flouting. But the other side has to dot every i for some reason.

Are we still talking about click-to-cancel here? There aren't 'other sides' in any meaningful sense on this sort of administrative decision. There is a solid consensus that people shouldn't have to pay for subscriptions they don't want and a couple of broadly inconsequential points to debate on how to implement it.

This is exactly the sort of situation where just following all the rules and procedures is fine and it doesn't, within a pretty broad range of outcomes, who gets final say.

Post reply on HN