9 ms·
Cable companies ask 5th Circuit to block FTC's click-to-cancel rule
- spl757 2y agoWon't somebody please think of the shareholders?
- Suppafly 2y agooh no, those poor cable companies.
- mikeyouse 2y agoYikes.. of course they filed in the 5th Circuit too. Why pretend there’s any consistent judiciary when you can just forum shop for the most reactionary Appeals court in recent history?
- edmundsauto 2y agoI feel the ACLU or other legal action committee is going to have to DoS this circuit to prevent it. If you can’t get on the docket for 10 years, it becomes less of an option.
- Forgeties79 2y agoI have nothing to add other than I am so tired of watching the 5th circuit just blatantly legislate from the bench (and in such a partisan way). It's basically a 2nd legislative arm at this point controlled by one political party.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> I am so tired of watching the 5th circuit just blatantly legislate from the bench (and in such a partisan way) Folks have been similarly complaining about the Ninth for some time, which has its rulings reversed about as often as the Fifth’s [1]. [1] https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_Present) https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_P...
- falcolas 2y agoNuke 'em both then. Seriously. Partisan politics, regardless of the side they take, should not belong in the judiciary.
- camel_Snake 2y agoThis is a wonderful source - thank you for providing it.
- n8henrie 2y agoNot knowing much about this and just going from your link (honestly I don't even know which side the 5th and 9th are on)... 5/10 and 8/10 are not all that close. 5/10 seems to give the 9th one of the lower rates of reversal, given that so many of them are 1/1.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> 5/10 and 8/10 are not all that close That’s only the recent term. Scroll down to the first vertical bar graph. Sixth is reversed over 80% of the time, Ninth right behind it. Fifth, Eighth and the State Courts comprise the second cohort in the 70-ish percent range. Note that these are conditional probabilities; we’re observing cases SCOTUS took on.
- Forgeties79 2y agoThis reads to me like cherry-picking. I don't know why we should just ignore the most recent trends in favor of older ones.
- briandear 2y agoAnd the 9th Circuit hasn’t?
- Forgeties79 2y agoI'd be curious to see where you saw me say the 9th circuit hasn't also engaged in this behavior. When we talk about Google or Microsoft or whoever doing something shady/unwanted, do we have to list every other major company that also engages in bad behavior? Am I obligated to list every single appellate court with issues or am I allowed to focus on the one we are talking about right now?
- 23B1 2y agoWhy pretend lawmakers are doing their job when you can just blame the courts? Chevron flew right past people's heads, didn't it.
- jfengel 2y agoI don't think anybody is pretending that lawmakers are doing their jobs. That's why people keep looking to the courts. Congress can't even pass the most fundamental law -- appropriations to keep the government open -- in a timely manner. Everybody is well aware that Congress is incapable of passing any law more pertinent than renaming a post office. Unfortunately, that's the result of everybody's individual Congressperson doing exactly what they're sent to do. Which is: stop the opposing party's legislators from accomplishing anything.
- 23B1 2y ago> I don't think anybody is pretending that lawmakers are doing their jobs. Pick any mainstream rag and I will show you an op-ed that blames the courts. Pick any popular internet social and I will show you the same. I'm not saying the courts aren't activist or partisan mind you, but the problem starts with bad laws made by bad lawmakers.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- diggan 2y ago> The lawsuits say the FTC order was "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act," Anyone with knowledge who can expand this or explain what exactly is "arbitrary", "capricious" or "abuse of discretion"? As far as I can tell, the best argument the cable companies have is "a consumer may easily misunderstand the consequences of canceling and it may be imperative that they learn about better options" but that feels contrived at best. Anyone have any better arguments against the new FTC rule?
- m463 2y agoCan't they just make it harder to sign up, so they can make it harder to cancel? That way consumers will understand the consequences of signing up and cancelling.
- diggan 2y ago> Can't they just make it harder to sign up, so they can make it harder to cancel? The obviously ideal case for the cable companies is "easy to signup - borderline impossible to cancel", as that'd lead to the highest short-term profits.
- AStonesThrow 2y agoCanceling Cable (Kieran Culkin on SNL) https://youtu.be/V5DeDLI8_IM?si=-O1bWCTrdLGK6gCH https://youtu.be/V5DeDLI8_IM?si=-O1bWCTrdLGK6gCH
- teeray 2y agoNevermind that if this were put to some kind of national popular vote it would pass overwhelmingly.
- dctoedt 2y ago> Nevermind that if this were put to some kind of national popular vote it would pass overwhelmingly. But it's typical of big industry groups to try to block any kind of regulatory- or legislative action that inhibits them from doing what they want.
- WillPostForFood 2y agoIt is also typical of big industry groups to support tons of regulation, because only big industry can afford to comply, and it keeps competition out.
- Sakos 2y agoI feel like that's too over-confident. They'll just do what corporations have been doing for decades. Invest in PR that paints this as protecting the American way and American values, and all the other nonsense corporations will use to convince voters to vote against their best interests.
- johnnyanmac 2y agomaybe I'm unusually optimistic, but I feel struggling with a BS subscription is a fairly bipartisan and universal experience here. It's not quite like how you can sell to the affluent how they deserve more and there are leechers taking from society. The leeches are the subscription companies.
- kelnos 2y agoGiven that half the country loves the party that is anti-regulation, "small" government, I don't think you have your finger on the pulse of the nation, so to speak. Not only would many people in the US be against this on principle ("the feds should stop meddling", "the free market will sort it out"), but the companies in question would invest lots of money into propaganda that many, many people would fall for.
- dylan604 2y agoI like this as a possible honey trap. Any company/industry that signs up to fight this is pretty much a self own admission they behave this way. Not one person fighting this is a surprise
- echoangle 2y agoWhat is there to expose? Basically every company would probably like that, if a company doesn’t sign up, it’s not because they are too moral but because they think the public perception of them will take a hit.
- dylan604 2y agoWho knows what evidence will finally get someone to get off the fence, so the more evidence of whatever type and especially own goals like this are welcome
- marcosdumay 2y agoIf a company doesn't do that, or does but wants to stop, it will be in favor of the regulation and against that suit. That is for whatever reason they have for not wanting to do it. Except, maybe for not doing it for publicity reasons and exploiting that fact with a large campaign.
- xp84 2y ago> Basically every company would probably like that No, only the ones who suck. I don't mean this in a jokey way. If I'm UpstartISP, Inc. and I believe that my product is actually better than Comcast offers, I want people to be able to cancel services without being jerked around, waiting on hold, and hassled, so that they can sign up with me. It's only companies that know they suck, and that their whole business is full of scams and deception, that want this. Yes, that's entire major industries, such as the "home security" lobbying group and cablecos mentioned in the article. As well as gym memberships.
- ryandrake 2y ago> No, only the ones who suck. I don't mean this in a jokey way. If I'm UpstartISP, Inc. and I believe that my product is actually better than Comcast offers, I want people to be able to cancel services without being jerked around, waiting on hold, and hassled, so that they can sign up with me. Sooner or later, some SeniorLeader inside UpstartISP, whose bonus is driven by profit or loss, will do the math and note that making it harder to cancel will cause quarterly profits to increase by 0.N%, and then the company will surely make the change. The tendency for all companies to profit-maximize guarantees it.
- dctoedt 2y ago> Anyone with knowledge who can expand this or explain what exactly is "arbitrary", "capricious" or "abuse of discretion"? I'm a lawyer. Here's a summary from Perplexity.ai, which comports well with my general understanding: The U.S. Supreme Court defines "arbitrary and capricious" in the context of administrative-agency action primarily through the standards set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). According to the APA, a court must invalidate agency actions that are found to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law" 1 3 4. The arbitrary and capricious standard is applied when reviewing an agency's decision-making process and involves several key considerations: Consideration of Relevant Factors: An agency action is deemed arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors that Congress did not intend it to consider, failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency 2 3. Rational Connection: The agency must demonstrate a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made. This requires a satisfactory explanation for its action based on consideration of relevant data 6. Consistency and Reasoning: The decision should not be based on seriously flawed reasoning or be inconsistent with prior actions unless adequately explained. The agency must also respond to relevant arguments or comments during the decision-making process 6. Zone of Reasonableness: Recent interpretations by the Supreme Court have introduced the concept of a "zone of reasonableness," where agency actions are upheld if they fall within a reasonable range of decisions based on the agency's expertise 4.
- binarymax 2y agoSigh. We’re here as people asking other people who hopefully have expertise. If we wanted an AI summary we could get it from perplexity ourselves. I say this as someone who actually builds and sells AI research software - but there’s a time and place for such things.
- dctoedt 2y ago[flagged]
- 2y ago
- ChrisArchitect 2y agoRelated: FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41858665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41858665
- lofaszvanitt 2y agoWay back... I think it was the WSJ or Wired, can't remember, where I couldn't change/delete my card details - except one field - once I had subscribed. So the only way to cancel the recurring subscription was to change the cvv code.
- boomboomsubban 2y agoIt's not like I have much sympathy for cable companies, but I can somewhat see their point here. Canceling your cable involves real costs, someone has to come to your home and disconnect it. Then if they quickly regret the decision, they'll be charged a not insignificant fee to be hooked up again. That said, the cable companies could still work around this. The rules seems to still allow "saves," which could include them contacting you the next day to try and reverse your decision. The save portion of the rule seems to be a loophole the telecommunications companies convinced the FTC to add for them, it sounded like originally those would be blocked.
- gurchik 2y agoI have never used a cable provider that required a visit to connect or disconnect service - it has always been done remotely.
- boomboomsubban 2y agoI have never had cable activated without a technician coming. I live in a more rural area, but I've also heard other people discuss "the cable guy is scheduled to arrive sometime between 8AM and 4PM." I think cable boxes change it somewhat, but the last time I had cable and not just cable internet they still had someone come to hook the cable box up. Admittedly, that was fifteen years ago now.
- brigade 2y agoThere has been zero reason to physically disconnect the hookup since analog cable was phased out 15 years ago. It can still be cheaper to send a guy out on service start to ensure the existing hookup is of sufficient quality (hasn’t degraded or been chewed or cut by the last owner) and the new customer isn’t trying to hook it into their aerial or old satellite dish or something. Or if your records are spotty and aren’t certain there’s an existing hookup.
- boomboomsubban 2y ago
- xp84 2y ago"onerous new regulatory obligations regarding disclosures, how those disclosures are communicated, a "separate" consent requirement, regulations of truthful company representative communications with customers, and prescriptive mandates for service cancellation, among others." Translation: "WTF, how dare you suggest that we have to stop deceiving and ripping off our customers? We aren't prepared to do business honestly! This is an outrage!" Note: California has this same type of law scheduled to go into effect in July. Can't wait!
- happyopossum 2y ago> same type of law scheduled to go into effect in July As near as I can tell, that's the real rub here - this is not a law,, nor was it directly enacted by legislation. It's a regulation written independent of lawmakers, and the question is whether the FTC has the authority to write this specific set of regulations. I'm hoping the cable companies lose but we should be aware of the consequences of allowing uncheck regulatory rule making outside the scope of congress.
- xp84 2y agoYou're absolutely right on that point. I am so frustrated at the massive vacuum left by our worthless federal legislative branch. It seems like "both sides" of the political aisle are feeling the same: Executive branch attempts to do something in an arguably commonsense way to solve a real problem, the guilty parties who caused the problem run to the courts for relief (usually on the grounds of lacking clear authority from Congress), courts agree and (often very explicitly) encourage Congress to pass a law if they think this authority ought to exist, and Congress resumes furiously fundraising and meeting with their donors. Edit: I know in general it's the left who "likes to regulate things" but a relevant example on the right would include regulating things like immigration.
- Terr_ 2y ago> I am so frustrated at the massive vacuum left by our worthless federal legislative branch. IMO that problem can be traced back to issues like: 1. The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 which prevented adding more Representatives as population grew. 2. The game-theoretic outcomes of continuing to use plurality/first-past-the-post voting. 3. How most officeholders end up spending most of their time raising money for re-election rather than the job itself.
- LadyCailin 2y ago> Cable companies worry rule will make it hard to talk customers out of canceling. That’s literally the fucking point.
- JoshTriplett 2y agoYup. I'd love to have a convenient way to transfer a phonecall to a message playing on loop, continuously without gaps for the other end to respond. e.g. "take me off your spam list immediately".
- jmyeet 2y agoQuick primer on how the courts have been successfully weaponized here. The Federal court system is divided into circuits [1]. Circuits are further divided into districts (eg Eastern District of Texas). In sparsely populated, large areas there districts may be further subdivided into divisions. The idea is you shouldn't need to drive 6 hours to get to a Federal judge. Each district has an Appeals Court that sits above the District Court so that's what "Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals" means. Above all the circuit appeals courts sits the Supreme Court. Additionally, each circuit has a single Supreme Court judge who is available to hear emergency motions from appeals court rulings. That judge can rule on the motion or refer the matter to the entire Supreme Court. Judges reflect the politics of the state they're in because of the blue slip system [2]. Presidents nominate judges to Federal courts. A Senator from that judge's state by tradition (ie there's no law for this) essentially can veto that nomination. Federal district court judges have the power to make rulings and issue injunctions that affect the entire country. So in Texas we have a perfect storm for judge shopping and a forum to push conservative views through lawsuits. Texas is a large state so the districts are divided into divisions. A division might only have 1-2 Federal district court judges. So if you nominally establish a business in Amarillo, TX you know with a high degree of certainty what judge you'll get when you file a lawsuit. With certain questionable tactics, you can know pretty much 100% what judge you "randomly" get assigned. This is called "judge shopping". It's why all the patent cases are litigated in the Eastern District of Texas. It's why any anti-abortion lawsuit always ends up in front of Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk [3] in the Northern District of Texas (eg [4]). So the Fifth Circuit is conservative because Texas, Alabama and Louisiana are conservative. Conservative judges are usually viewed as more friendly to lawsuits attacking any sort of government regulation. Even if the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals doesn't rule in favor of the cable companies, the matter will go straight to the Supreme Court. This current Supreme Court has shown themselves highly likely to take up the case and intervene, probably in favor of cable companies. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judicial_district https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judicial... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip_(U.S._Senate) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip_(U.S._Senate) [3]: https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-matthew-kacsmaryk https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-matthew-kacsmaryk [4]: https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1159220452/abortion-pill-drug-mifepristone-judge-texas-amarillo https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1159220452/abortion-pill-drug...
- andrewla 2y agoIt's hard to see the steelman case for this. The transcript of their objections at the initial hearing are on page 13 of the transcript [1] > The FTC's highly prescriptive proposal requiring numerous disclosures, multiple consents and specific cancellation mechanisms is a particularly poor fit for our industry. Our members offer services in a variety of custom bundles. They're provided over a wide range of devices and platforms. Consumers, for example, frequently subscribe to a triple play bundle that includes cable, broadband and voice services. They may face difficulty and unintended consequences if they want to cancel only one service in the package. > The proposed simple click-to-cancel mechanism may not be so simple when such practices are involved. A consumer may easily misunderstand the consequences of canceling and it may be imperative that they learn about better options. For example, canceling part of a discounted bundle may increase the price for remaining services. When canceling phone service, a consumer needs to understand they will lose 9-1-1 or lifeline services as well. Especially important, low-income consumers could be deprived of lower-cost plans and special government programs that would allow their families to keep broadband service. I mean, except for the 9-1-1 point, I guess I feel like all of those policies -- the bundling in particular -- should ALSO be disallowed. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ftc-negative-option-rule-informal-hearing-transcript-1.16.24.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ftc-negative-op...
- filereaper 2y agoNot so sure about the 9-1-1 point. >"All wireless phones, even those that are not subscribed to or supported by a specific carrier, can call 911. However, calls to 911 on phones without active service do not deliver the caller’s location to the 911 call center, and the call center cannot call these phones back to find out the caller’s location or the nature of the emergency. If disconnected, the 911 center has no way to call back the caller." Source: https://www.911.gov/calling-911/frequently-asked-questions/ https://www.911.gov/calling-911/frequently-asked-questions/ Seems they're deliberately distorting their responsibilities.
- kelnos 2y agoThat sounds like something to fix, then. Requiring carriers to enable whatever side-channel is necessary to transmit location info to the 911 PSAP shouldn't be a heavy lift. The callback issue seems harder to resolve, but even if a handset has no assigned phone number, there are other ways to address it (e.g. IMEI). Carriers should be required to build in a capability to make this work.
- elevatedastalt 2y ago[Note: This will not be an anti-Cable-company screed] The American legislative system is bizarre. To begin with, Congress is accorded very little power by the constitution, with most of it resting with "We the people" or the states. This however, doesn't pattern match with the amount of power some people (typically progressives) _think_ the Congress or government _ought_ to have, or the amount of power Congress _wants_ to have (as much as possible), so we see BS things like the abuse of the Commerce Clause loophole to justify any Congressional intervention. Now, you'd think that with all this power that they have loopholed their way into, they would actually exercise it, but that doesn't actually happen, because they are permanently gridlocked and can't pass any damn shit unless it's part of a giant 1000-page omnibus bill that has 100 unrelated things clubbed together based on whatever horse-trading they manage to do one day before the govt shutdown deadline. So what actually happens is that the actual rule-making is done by the executive, in the form of these government agencies, which ideally should be enforcing things that the Congress has passed, but effectively are given pseudo-legal power through a variety of judicial interpretations (eg. the Chevron Doctrine) that can be overturned by the next Supreme Court as trivially as they were written in. All in all, you get a massively dysfunctional system where regulatory agencies act as effectively unelected lawmakers, with the actual lawmakers doing jackshit, and the judiciary effectively supporting these shenanigans through capricious rulings. And while doing all this, lawmakers can conveniently ramp on the rhetoric during campaigning because they know they don't actually need to do anything. They didn't even pass abortion-related legislation for 50 whole years, because they could use that division to reap votes every election cycle.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- focusedone 2y agoThat's a fairly accurate assessment of how the whole thing works. Grand, ain't it?
- jancsika 2y ago> Congress is accorded very little power by the constitution, with most of it resting with "We the people" or the states. It's a brilliant way to specify powers to a legislative body, essentially a nation-state equivalent of Linux's "don't break userspace" directive. In both cases objections can bubble up from the bottom to the top, with courts being the equivalent of a mailing list post, "Hey, this new code breaks my use case! Fucking change it back!" In both cases one could argue about the implementation matching the aspirations of the concept. But to find the basic concept itself "bizarre" is to signal to the world that you don't understand one of the basic tenants of the constitution.
- gigatexal 2y agoIf you needed any more evidence that these companies would rather extract value than provide it … If the FTC got nothing done but this and it stood up in court it’d be a huge win for society. I remember the relentless and annoying and capricious and arcane process I had to go through to cancel Comcast for my elderly mother. Gyms do this, too! Super easy to sign up almost impossible to cancel.
- cinntaile 2y agoIt should be as easy to cancel as it is to sign up.
- gigatexal 2y agoIt’s common sense. Now let’s see if it passes legal muster. I’m not so sure. Judges can be bought. And lobbyists … I’m hopeful but I dunno.
- m463 2y agoI had a gym membership - when I moved, I had to send a certified letter to their corporate office to cancel.
- rubyfan 2y agoLunk alert!
- anonzzzies 2y agoIt is the reason I use digital cards for all memberships; I make a new one for each. People said 'the company will take action for non payment' but they never did ; I did this for the past 15 years with phone companies, cable/internet, online service, and, indeed gyms; works fine. But then again we don't have that insane weirdness called credit rating/score here, so maybe it doesn't work for countries where people accept that type of idiocy?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jmull 2y agoI recently canceled T-mobile home internet. Cancelling the service was easy. Cancelling the recurring payments has turned out to be an entirely different matter.
- jauntywundrkind 2y agoThe 5th Circuit has a bunch of ultra radical appointees, who among other things ordered ACA to be eliminated. ExTwitter's new ToS require cases to be held in their jurisdiction, in Northern Texas, which has particularly wild people. This is absurd court shopping/forum shopping & this court is slated to unmake a huge huge huge part of the USA. The Supreme Court has chastised them numberous times, but they are going to undo so so much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit#2020s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mlindner 2y agoWorth mentioning that companies like Starlink make it trivial to cancel service.
- Lasher 2y agoAnyone who has ever tried to cancel Sirius-XM knows how desperately we need this law.
- howard941 2y agoThey fixed it. It was easy as pie 3 months ago.
- whoopdedo 2y agoIf you want to lock customers into a contract then call it a contract. Every subscription plan very ominously states "this is not a contract" so the company has no obligation to provide the promised level of service and can change the plan at any time. Yet here they are arguing that customers don't have the right to terminate a subscription. That's called a contract and you can't have it both ways.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y agoIf this gets canceled, it's hilarious. There isn't a single reason beside "defrauding" consumers that this shouldn't be law
- yibbix 2y ago#1 reason I use proxy cards to pay for subscriptions, all I have to do is pause or delete the proxy card and then I won’t have to worry about complicated cancellation processes