US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel • Hacker News Board

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

#341

Post by pessimizer » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 3:38 PM UTC

fumeux_fume wrote: post #338

caesil wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you actually bother to click through and read the article, you'd find the court expressed sympathies with the intent of the rule, but the FTC "is required to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis when a rule has an estimated annual economic effect of $100 million or more", and they did not do that. The blame here belongs to the FTC for its rushed and sloppy process that put the rule on shaky ground legally.

This is a pretty narrow view. A lot of businesses--whose bread and butter (well maybe just the butter) is keeping people locked into subscriptions they don't want--put a large effort in challenging this rule. They would have fought it like hell during the "analysis" which would have stretched into the Trump presidency were it would surely would have been killed. Even if the analysis had been completed, it's likely th…

I don't know what you mean by "narrow" here. It sounds like you're saying that they did it at the last minute, and failed to finish. But you're saying that since the next administration would "surely" never do click to cancel, that somehow should immunize the FTC from following their own regulations? The next administration was elected.

The reason they have to do studies is so they can't rush things through. We don't want them to be able to rush things through. They're creating law.

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

#342

Post by rtkwe » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 3:39 PM UTC

caesil wrote: post #318

John23832 wrote: post #236

What consumer does this serve at all? What citizen does this serve at all? This only serves to allow firms to erect effort barriers to keep rent seeking fro their customers. The "gotcha" that the Khan FTC didn't "follow the rules making process" is parallel construction.

If you actually bother to click through and read the article, you'd find the court expressed sympathies with the intent of the rule, but the FTC "is required to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis when a rule has an estimated annual economic effect of $100 million or more", and they did not do that. The blame here belongs to the FTC for its rushed and sloppy process that put the rule on shaky ground legally.

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.

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

#343

Post by db48x » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 3:45 PM UTC

collingreen wrote: post #327

db48x wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With 106,000 companies doing this, that’s less than $1,000 each. Do you think that _your_ company could review all of its marketing materials for compliance with a new FTC rule for less than that? How much would you as a consultant charge one of those companies for your assistance? But if you don’t like the rule, talk to your local Congresscritter and ask them to propose a bill to amend or remove it. Complaining abou…

Thanks for the downvote! I don't have any problem with the rule, which is why you dont see me arguing against it. I'm also not trying to change the laws by commenting on hn so your advice to not comment and instead call my reps comes off as pretty rude. I do have a problem with the bad faith take of it costing a bunch of money to pay lawyers and data scientists in order to figure out how to "make it possible to cance…

> but your goalpost moving requirement of updating all marketing doesn't meet the bar for me there

I didn’t move the goalposts here. The new rules that are at issue here were about much more than just providing a button that cancels your subscription. See the actual text of the amendment to the rules https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/p064202_negativ...> if you don’t believe me. But I’ll quote the summary here:

    The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) issues final amendments to the Commission’s trade regulation “Rule Concerning Use of Prenotification Negative Option Plans,” retitled the “Rule Concerning Recurring Subscriptions and Other Negative Option Programs” (“Rule,” “final Rule” or “Negative Option Rule”). The final Rule now applies to all negative option programs in any media, and, among other things, (1) prohibits misrepresentations of any material fact made while marketing using negative option features; (2) requires sellers to provide important information prior to obtaining consumers’ billing information and charging consumers; (3) requires sellers to obtain consumers’ unambiguously affirmative consent to the negative option feature prior to charging them; and (4) requires sellers to provide consumers with simple cancellation mechanisms to immediately halt all recurring charges.

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

#344

Post by bluGill » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 3:48 PM UTC

thrance wrote: post #256

bluGill wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case it quickly becomes clear that the court was right. The ends do not justify the means. Score one for conservatives for following/enforcing the law I guess.

Weird how they only enforce the law when it serves their interests though.

That is false. The conservatives have made it clear that they support the rule, but it needs to be done right. The real question is why are liberals willing to ignore the law?

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

#345

Post by bluGill » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 3:52 PM UTC

bitcurious wrote: post #251

bluGill wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was also the result of Europe (now the EU) choosing not to oppose the US (at least mostly - they did in small areas). The EU has more people and combined could - if they wanted - be more powerful than the US. However they have never seen any point - they mostly (not entirely) agree with the US and so it would be a waste of their limited time to do that instead of what they were doing instead.

> It was also the result of Europe (now the EU) choosing not to oppose the US (at least mostly - they did in small areas). The EU has more people and combined could - if they wanted - be more powerful than the US. Europe was destroyed by war, and then occupied by the US and USSR. The US liberated Western Europe and backstopped their independence. The Europeans didn’t choose to be on the American side, they were force…

In the 1950s that was true. By 1960 it was already changing. When the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s Europe was plenty rebuilt enough that they could have redirected their efforts to opposing the US, but they mostly choose not to. Sure the US had a head start, but they have plenty of power. China is moving in the direction of opposing the US in the world, and seeing results.

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

#346

Post by ApolloFortyNine » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 3:53 PM UTC

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 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.

Basically the judges, and a lower court, all agreed that there's no way this rule won't have at last a $100 million in impact, and when something has that much impact there are rules they were meant to follow and didn't. And they rightly commented that if this was allowed to stand, the FTC and every government agency would just always estimate low in these cases.

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

#347

Post by charles_f » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 3:59 PM UTC

> compliance costs would exceed $100 million "unless each business used fewer than twenty-three hours of professional services at the lowest end of the spectrum of estimated hourly rates,"

I don't get that. From what I understand the justification is that the economic effect is greater than the $100M bar. But what does the 23h of professional services has to do with anything there? Is the $100M impact judged only on cost of implementation?

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

#348

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 4:00 PM UTC

scrubs wrote: post #152

b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

neoliberal deregulation and regulatory capture, not necessarily in that order, has basically killed federal consumer protection in the US.

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…

[deleted]

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

#349

Post by derektank » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 4:02 PM UTC

John23832 wrote: post #236

What consumer does this serve at all? What citizen does this serve at all? This only serves to allow firms to erect effort barriers to keep rent seeking fro their customers. The "gotcha" that the Khan FTC didn't "follow the rules making process" is parallel construction.

People are served by knowing that, regardless of what the law says, it will be applied consistently. It's on the legislature to write new law if the old law is bad, not the judiciary.

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

#350

Post by zaphar » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 4:04 PM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #342

caesil wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you actually bother to click through and read the article, you'd find the court expressed sympathies with the intent of the rule, but the FTC "is required to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis when a rule has an estimated annual economic effect of $100 million or more", and they did not do that. The blame here belongs to the FTC for its rushed and sloppy process that put the rule on shaky ground legally.

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 do you think the FTC analysis was more accurate than the opposing sides? The judges, of whom there were multiple, were going off of opposing side argumentation not just their own subjective opinion. That's how courts in the US work.