5 ms·
The FTC was warned at the time that they were flouting required procedures and that their rule would therefore not survive legal scrutiny. Lo and behold it did
by fwlr 1y ago
The FTC was warned at the time that they were flouting required procedures and that their rule would therefore not survive legal scrutiny. Lo and behold it did not.
- dboreham 1y agoBecause systematic corruption presumably?
- jibe 1y agoIf you are sniffing out corruption, aren’t the ones flouting required procedures likely the corrupt ones?
- Aeolun 1y agoKinda, but corruption in my favor is unlikely to see me complain about it.
- wrasee 1y agoThat’s obviously no justification, all corruption is in someone’s favour. Society functions by rules. Break those founding principles and you break everything.
- wqaatwt 1y agoWhat if the “required procedures” are held in place by corruption?
- hshdhdhj4444 1y agoAlmost never. Whistleblowers are almost always revealing information that they are legally prevented from revealing, otherwise you wouldn’t need a whistleblower. A simple FOIA request would suffice.
- tbrownaw 1y agoMore that they mistakenly thought that doing the right thing meant they didn't have to do the thing right.
- bjt12345 1y agoBut, if you want to make it look like you are doing the right thing but don't want to be remembered as having done that right thing, maybe this was the right thing to do given that now it won't be done.
- techpineapple 1y agoRight, if they were screwing over customers, we’d call it disruption and give them a medal, if not $1 billion dollars. Since they’re trying to help people, we wag our fingers at them.
- weberer 1y ago>they were flouting required procedures
- guelo 1y agowho warned them?
- Hnrobert42 1y agoA then-commissioner who is now the head of the FTC.
- guelo 1y agoThat commissioner also hated the fact that consumers were going to stop being robbed by big corps.
- VonTum 1y agoI find it unproductive to assign emotion to such blatant corruption. I'd rather frame it as "That comissioner sees it to be in his personal best interest to not stop consumers being robbed by big corps."
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- db48x 1y ago“The commissioner sees it as important that his government department actually follows the rules as written down by Congress” seems like a fairer interpretation. Congress literally wrote “You must do X when Y”, and the FTC said “Well, probably Y isn’t true anyway, so we can skip doing X”. It’s true that Y involves an estimate, since there’s no way to calculate the exact number, but their estimate was clearly cooked with the specific purpose of letting them rush. The new rules seem like good rules, too, so it’s really a shame that they decided that it was more important to rush than to do it right. That makes the old commissioner a bungler at best.
- miltonlost 1y agoAh so a Trump appointee and 2 judges appointed by Trump. Now that's a group I would never trust to follow the law.
- hshdhdhj4444 1y agoPlease point to an example of these warnings.
- VWWHFSfQ 1y ago> 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. > But an administrative law judge later found that the rule's impact surpassed the threshold, observing that 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," the 8th Circuit ruling said. Despite the administrative law judge's finding, the FTC did not conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis and instead "proceeded to issue only the final regulatory analysis alongside the final Rule," the judges' panel said. It says it in the article
- braiamp 1y agoThe fact that it takes more than 24 hours to put a 1 click cancel button is alien to me.
- delfinom 1y agoWell, after you factor in some of these companies are probably large corps with layers of middle management. It will probably require at least 3 months of premeetings
- fireflash38 1y agoWhich explains the issue with the law neatly: 1. Not pegged at inflation, so the threshold is continually moving downward. 2. All it takes is a couple of bad actor companies to blow out the threshold. If you take the companies at their word, then you will never get under this threshold. Why trust them?