3 ms·

Does anybody have insight into the dissenting opinion. I skimmed through it and it just looked like the commissioner was saying "this is overreach, partisan and

Does anybody have insight into the dissenting opinion. I skimmed through it and it just looked like the commissioner was saying "this is overreach, partisan and congress should do this". Am I missing something?

wilde 2y ago
Ben Thompson tried to make this case in various places when Amazon was sued by the FTC. Roughly “businesses should be able to make a case for why you should still be a subscriber”. I disagree. Fuck subscriptions, they’re predatory.
anshumankmr 2y ago
Just for fun, I asked Claude for a dissenting opinion > # Dissenting Opinion on FTC's Click-to-Cancel Rule While the FTC's intention to protect consumers is commendable, this new "click-to-cancel" rule may have unintended consequences that could harm both businesses and consumers. Here are some key points of dissent: 1. *Overreach of Regulatory Authority*: The FTC's broad application of this rule to "almost all negative option programs in any media" may exceed its statutory authority. This sweeping approach could face legal challenges. 2. *Increased Costs for Businesses*: Implementing new cancellation systems and processes could be costly, especially for small businesses. These costs may ultimately be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. 3. *Potential for Increased Fraud*: Making cancellation too easy might inadvertently increase the risk of unauthorized cancellations by bad actors, leading to service disruptions for legitimate subscribers. 4. *Loss of Customer Retention Opportunities*: By prohibiting businesses from discussing plan modifications or reasons to keep existing agreements during cancellation, the rule may deprive consumers of potentially beneficial alternatives or information. 5. *Inconsistency with Other Industries*: The rule may create an uneven playing field, as some industries (like telecommunications or utilities) often have different cancellation processes due to the nature of their services. 6. *Consumer Responsibility*: The rule may unfairly shift the burden of subscription management entirely onto businesses, potentially reducing consumer responsibility and awareness. 7. *Innovation Stifling*: Strict regulations on subscription models could discourage innovation in service offerings and pricing structures that might benefit consumers. 8. *Compliance Challenges*: The 180-day implementation period may not be sufficient for all businesses to comply, especially given the broad scope of the rule. While consumer protection is crucial, a more balanced approach that considers the needs of both consumers and businesses might be more effective. The FTC should consider a more nuanced rule that addresses specific abusive practices rather than imposing broad restrictions on all negative option programs.

wilde 2y ago

Ben Thompson tried to make this case in various places when Amazon was sued by the FTC. Roughly “businesses should be able to make a case for why you should still be a subscriber”. I disagree. Fuck subscriptions, they’re predatory.

anshumankmr 2y ago

Just for fun, I asked Claude for a dissenting opinion > # Dissenting Opinion on FTC's Click-to-Cancel Rule While the FTC's intention to protect consumers is commendable, this new "click-to-cancel" rule may have unintended consequences that could harm both businesses and consumers. Here are some key points of dissent: 1. *Overreach of Regulatory Authority*: The FTC's broad application of this rule to "almost all negative option programs in any media" may exceed its statutory authority. This sweeping approach could face legal challenges. 2. *Increased Costs for Businesses*: Implementing new cancellation systems and processes could be costly, especially for small businesses. These costs may ultimately be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. 3. *Potential for Increased Fraud*: Making cancellation too easy might inadvertently increase the risk of unauthorized cancellations by bad actors, leading to service disruptions for legitimate subscribers. 4. *Loss of Customer Retention Opportunities*: By prohibiting businesses from discussing plan modifications or reasons to keep existing agreements during cancellation, the rule may deprive consumers of potentially beneficial alternatives or information. 5. *Inconsistency with Other Industries*: The rule may create an uneven playing field, as some industries (like telecommunications or utilities) often have different cancellation processes due to the nature of their services. 6. *Consumer Responsibility*: The rule may unfairly shift the burden of subscription management entirely onto businesses, potentially reducing consumer responsibility and awareness. 7. *Innovation Stifling*: Strict regulations on subscription models could discourage innovation in service offerings and pricing structures that might benefit consumers. 8. *Compliance Challenges*: The 180-day implementation period may not be sufficient for all businesses to comply, especially given the broad scope of the rule. While consumer protection is crucial, a more balanced approach that considers the needs of both consumers and businesses might be more effective. The FTC should consider a more nuanced rule that addresses specific abusive practices rather than imposing broad restrictions on all negative option programs.