> The order will also require the settling defendants to provide consumers with an easy method to cancel their subscriptions and require them to get express, in

> The order will also require the settling defendants to provide consumers with an easy method to cancel their subscriptions and require them to get express, informed consent from consumers before signing them up for a recurring subscription plan. If it is decided that cancellations weren't being reasonably "accepted", costing customers money, then why aren't all customers automatically due back the money that was unlawfully taken from them from the date they tried to cancel? If they didn't have express, informed consent from consumers before "signing them up" for a recurring subscription plan, how did a contract exist between them at all? Does this not mean that all money they took was fraudulent in these cases? Because this is the problem. Cancellation usually takes place the moment you give them (or reasonably try to give them) notice of cancellation [whether they want to accept that or not]. You don't owe them any more money from that point, and if they say you do, then that should be considered fraud. Therefore they should automatically owe you any further money they took (whether by automatic payment or under duress by threat of hurting your credit record). This seems like a thief has been caught, told not do it again, but is required to return only a fraction of goods they stole, and not even to the people they stole it from.