The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule • Hacker News Board

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#191

Post by thrtythreeforty » Tue, May 13, 2025, 1:58 AM UTC

p1mrx wrote: post #184

const_cast wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right now the on-hold music is interrupted to sell me shit. Jesus Christ, this is like those gasoline pumps that blare ads at you while you pump. On that little screen right above the plaque that says "you better not go in your car or this whole place will fucking explode or something". Since when is it chill to hold people hostage for ads, let alone LOUD ads? I don't want to hear this! PS: little tip for gasoline…

> gasoline pump ads: one button always mutes them I don't think this is true anymore. I've pushed all 8 buttons on a pump near me, and it didn't mute. Almost purchased a car wash though. Thankfully my primary car is electric.

I leave one star reviews for those places with the text "gas pump ads can't be muted." Hopefully others will too... one can dream anyway.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#192

Post by andrewflnr » Tue, May 13, 2025, 2:18 AM UTC

fuzzer371 wrote: post #145

andrewflnr wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it was. Certainly that's a position that people have held since long before Trump.

[flagged]

I might just be arguing to argue, but it did read to me like "nothing has really changed"-style cynicism. (I don't personally agree, but that's a different question.)

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#193

Post by insane_dreamer » Tue, May 13, 2025, 2:35 AM UTC

tacon wrote: post #174

mrguyorama wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because without any form of regulation, the ISP has no requirement to honor that letter? The whole point of "click to cancel" was to deal with the fact that a business, by contract law, can make it almost entirely impossible to stop owing them money through entirely legal means. The courts do not consider being on hold for 18 hours onerous enough to void a contract, so it's perfectly legal to require you to follow th…

>Because without any form of regulation, the ISP has no requirement to honor that letter? Is this your personal exerience, or are you making assumptions? I would love to hear how this process possibly fails to unsubscribe anyone: 1. Go to your state's corporate website and get/buy the name and address of the corporate registered agent for your ISP or whatever. In Texas that costs $1. 2. Write or ask ChatGPT to write…

Why should it be so difficult to cancel a service?

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#194

Post by insane_dreamer » Tue, May 13, 2025, 2:37 AM UTC

nrclark wrote: post #87

Angostura wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s almost as if the previous administration was focussed more on the former, and the current administration more on the latter. I guess you get the government you vote for.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.

I'm getting tired of this whataboutism.

We did not have an almost daily turmoil of shit happening in 2021-2024.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#195

Post by foobarchu » Tue, May 13, 2025, 3:46 AM UTC

const_cast wrote: post #181

arwhatever wrote: post #105

I'm listening to hold music right now, 30 minutes into my attempt at cancelling 3mbps home DSL service (not a typo), for which the price has crept up to $71 USD/mo. I first spoke with a customer service agent whose accent I couldn't understand very well. I have him ALL my account information. He mumbled something about being unable to forward me to the actual customer service agent (then what is your role, dude?), th…

> Right now the on-hold music is interrupted to sell me shit. Jesus Christ, this is like those gasoline pumps that blare ads at you while you pump. On that little screen right above the plaque that says "you better not go in your car or this whole place will fucking explode or something". Since when is it chill to hold people hostage for ads, let alone LOUD ads? I don't want to hear this! PS: little tip for gasoline…

You know, I actually haven't encountered this at a gas station in a year or two. I hadn't realized until now that my local gas stations just don't have those little TV interludes anymore. I haven't heard the dulcet tones of Maria Menudo or Mario Lopez in so long.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#196

Post by Suppafly » Tue, May 13, 2025, 4:32 AM UTC

thechao wrote: post #186

Suppafly wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canceling your credit card doesn't magically get you out of owing money that you're contractually obligated to pay. It might get them to eventually cancel your service for non-payment, but it's not a guarantee. They might just keep billing you until it's worth thousands and then mess up your credit or pursue you in court for payment.

I've talked to my rep about the idea of "credit card cancellation": the idea that you should be able to go through your bank (or you credit card provider's web app) go to a recurring charge and click "cancel" from there. I'm pretty sure most major credit card companies would be on board; what's stopping them is the legal thicket of contracts that are in the way. What the CC providers need is a clear framework from th…

Actually that is probably one thing that credit cards could do without legislational changes, by modifying their merchant agreements. Businesses would be salty about it, but the value of being able to accept credit cards would mean they'd have to suck it up and accept it. They'd have to put something about how by accepting cards, they agree that that agreement supersedes any other and that a payment cancelation or chargeback constitutes acceptance of cancelation for whatever service was being paid for by that card or something along those lines.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#197

Post by fastball » Tue, May 13, 2025, 4:55 AM UTC

tchalla wrote: post #59

fastball wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you actually want there to be a big "Cancel" button in the top right corner of every subscribed service? I personally don't want that. Click to cancel? Sure. But perfectly symmetrical is not something I need and in many cases not something I want.

It's ok that you don't need something. That's fine. That said, we don't define policies based on your need. So, I won't disqualify your need. I would ask you to think more than you.

If this suggested policy isn't based on consumer need, what is it based on?

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#198

Post by fastball » Tue, May 13, 2025, 4:56 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #96

jabroni_salad wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you describe your ideal cancellation workflow?

I'd be happy with this. 1. Login 2. Go to your account page. 3. That should have a link to billing management. 4. Somewhere on the billing management screen there should be some easy to figure out way to cancel. Details will vary but in general cancelling logically makes the most sense as part of payment management, so it belongs where other payment management goes such as adding or updating a credit card. If the sit…

Yes, I am happy with this flow and this is the flow on 90% of subscribed services I use.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#199

Post by arp242 » Tue, May 13, 2025, 5:15 AM UTC

shlomo_z wrote: post #109

arunabha wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Choosing not to enforce the click to cancel rule is not Trump's fault? How so?

Laws get pushed off for all kinds of reasons. It seems like this was pushed off to give businesses more time to comply. Many kinds of businesses have subscriptions, each with a different situation. Some small businesses don't even have a programmer. Requiring a phone call is not always (although often is) to make it difficult to cancel. Often it's because a company doesn't have the proper infrastructure for the front…

Everything you're saying makes sense if you assume you're dealing with good faith governance.

But we're not.

So maybe you're right. I don't know. But I sure as hell wouldn't assume as much based on the words of these people. We'll see in July I guess.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#200

Post by arp242 » Tue, May 13, 2025, 5:21 AM UTC

sillystu04 wrote: post #82

kgwxd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They absolutely don't have the power to excuse debt. Just because a company can't charge your credit card, doesn't mean you don't still owe them money on paper.

Visa/Mastercard can demand merchants meet certain standards of consumer care in order to participate in their networks. No consumer business can operate without access to those card networks.

I really don't want unelected corporations with no accountability to anything other than profit margins to be policing payments, subscriptions, business behaviour, or anything else.

These companies provide an utility that is essential for participation in the economy. There needs to be some due process if you want to exclude people or corporations from that.