7 ms·
'Click-to-cancel' rule is blocked
- camillomiller 1y agoI would like to hear by those that decry the EU's approach to regulating Big Tech how this is great news for consumers!
- sksrbWgbfK 1y agoIronically it is still on the front page with a lot of people defending big businesses (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44529061 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44529061). I do hope they don't mind having to jump through hoops to cancel their subscriptions, or they are part of the propaganda (which could be a real thing nowadays).
- delichon 1y agoIt will incentivize the bureaucracy to properly follow the rules around notifying the public about proposed regulations when doing this next time. It's a good thing for regulations to go through that process in order to politically help balance the power of the unitary executive. This rule can and likely will pass again with proper procedure. If you think that this administration has seized powers it should not have, you should appreciate that this ruling upholds at least a minor constraint on it.
- efitz 1y ago> If you think that this administration has seized powers it should not have, you should appreciate that this ruling upholds at least a minor constraint on it. This rule was passed by the Biden administration. Don’t make it about politics when it’s not.
- andrewla 1y agoI am critical of the EU's approach, but say what you will, they are at least voting on it in a legislative setting rather than trying to staple it to the coattails of the fringes of their remit. It is for Congress to act on this, simple as that.
- Popeyes 1y agoIf it's going to cost the industry more than $100m then it's going to cost consumers more than $100m. What a scam.
- bravesoul2 1y agoQuestion is, what is a preliminary regulatory analysis and how much of a hurdle would that have been.
- ethan_smith 1y agoThis assumes costs are zero-sum when in reality the current system already imposes significant hidden costs on consumers through wasted time, accidental continued subscriptions, and frustration.
- layer8 1y agoSince GP said “more than”, I don’t think they are assuming the absence of hidden costs.
- brazzy 1y agoI'm absolutely in favor of the rule, but this is simply not true. Mandating everyone to implement changes in how their software works will incur huge costs, no matter what the change is, even if there were zero benefit or savings for anyone.
- bilekas 1y ago> Mandating everyone to implement changes in how their software works will incur huge costs I'm sorry but if the companies bottom line depends on forgotten subscriptions you dont get to cry foul when your dark practices need to be removed.
- tzs 1y agoThis has nothing to do with forgotten subscriptions or dark practices. Nearly any mandated changes to nearly any company's software no matter what business they are in will incur costs. The FTC is required to take extra care when regulating in the case when those costs will be high.
- vivzkestrel 1y agolots of big movements going on against corpos eh? we got click to cancel on one end, stop killing games on the other end. we are literally fighting enshittification at this point and they are getting away with it just because it is legal. We gotta win this one
- anton-c 1y agoI dig the optimistic view. I wish I felt I could really fight things more often rather than just check out when things turn to shit.(although hopefully I'll be able to leave in one click) Couldn't even sign the stop killing games thing since that's EU!
- user9999999999 1y ago[flagged]
- e40 1y ago“This” being what?
- bluGill 1y agoAs it should have been. Even if you (as I do) agree with the rule itself, it needs to be implemented in the correct way. Otherwise you end up in a world where there is no rule of law; and in turn no rights except for those in power. Sometimes those in power might be on your side, but that doesn't mean they are right. You need to oppose the way this rule was passed in all cases because otherwise you have nothing to work with when some other rule is passed that you don't like.
- CivBase 1y agoCan you explain what part of the rule you believe was being implemented incorrectly?
- inquirerGeneral 1y ago[dead]
- Someone 1y agoI guess they’re remark is about the process, not about the rule change itself. (FTA) “the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said this week that the FTC made a procedural error by failing to come up with a preliminary regulatory analysis, which is required for rules whose annual impact on the U.S. economy is more than $100 million.” So, basically, for largish changes, the rules say you have to do some/lots of (I wouldn’t know which) extra work to check that a change will have the intended effect.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bluGill 1y agoSee other reply first, I won't cover it. This should be a law that congress passes, not a rule that the executive branch passes. Demand your congressmen do their job my encoding this into a real law.
- 1y ago
- raywatcher 1y agoJust days before the FTC’s “Click-to-Cancel” rule was set to take effect in July 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit struck it down. The court ruled that the FTC violated federal procedural requirements by failing to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis, which is mandatory for any rule expected to have an economic impact exceeding $100 million annually. Although the FTC initially claimed the rule would fall below that threshold, an administrative law judge later found that compliance costs would exceed it—unless every business somehow managed to implement the rule using fewer than 23 hours of professional services at the lowest possible rate. The court concluded that the FTC’s failure to issue a separate preliminary analysis for public review deprived stakeholders of a meaningful opportunity to challenge or shape the rule, rendering it procedurally invalid. So no, the unanimous ruling by the Eighth Circuit didn’t kill the Biden-era regulation because the judges were Republican appointees. It was struck down because bureaucratic procedures weren't followed. Its a shame because I believe canceling subscriptions should be easy. It often is not in the U.S. (I’m looking at you adobe)this really undermines consumer interests :(
- lesuorac 1y ago> unless every business somehow managed to implement the rule using fewer than 23 hours of professional services at the lowest possible rate. I mean that's one way to comply with "click to cancel". You could also make signing up more difficult and I doubt that would take 23 hours.
- bgro 1y agoCrime, fraud and terrorism continue to be legal.
- gausswho 1y agoI'll mourn the loss of sensible regulation here. For now, if the unsubscribe process isn't obvious or takes me more than a couple minutes, I cancel the virtual card I gave that business.
- teeray 1y ago> I cancel the virtual card I gave that business. Then you get sent to collections and pay with your credit report
- gausswho 1y agoHasn't happened to me and I've cancelled this way over a dozen times. What sort of businesses have you heard of doing this vs ending your service?
- siliconwrath 1y agoI hear this a lot about gym memberships https://www.wcvb.com/article/mass-woman-struggles-to-cancel-gym-membership-despite-strong-state-law/62454478 https://www.wcvb.com/article/mass-woman-struggles-to-cancel-...
- gausswho 1y agoYeah something is completely broken with American gyms. I tell everyone to avoid them and especially the private trainers they let patrol their floors. There's other ways to maintain fitness than risk being held ransom.
- zukzuk 1y agoIn case of preauthorized charges, a closed credit card account can still be debited, and you’re ultimately liable for repayment. Yes, this is a ridiculous state of things, but such is the world we live in, here in North America anyway.
- 1y ago
- jeffreportmill1 1y ago[dead]
- onlyrealcuzzo 1y agoI'm sure at least 32% of the country can explain why this is a win for consumers. Anyone?
- mystraline 1y agoIn my history, I rightly (pun intended) called out that this court is 2 trump appointees and 1 george hw bush appointee. Both are -4'ed and 1 flagged, with name calling of 'ad hominem'. Judges are inherently human, but they should strive for impartiality. But with continual 6-3 judgements out of SCOTUS, which lie directly with what party appointed who, along with federal-court shopping shows that this criticism is well stated. And it probably is an ad-hominem, as in 'to the (hu)man'. But that is no excuse or hand-wavey reason to not look closely at corruption, which is what I think all of this is. And yes, it is a trade commission justification to make sure companies are using fair practices, of which 'call 10 times and threaten, and eventually send a snail mail to cancel' is demonstrably NOT fair. Doubly so, since the same companies that do this make it easy to sign up. And they know if they make cancellng hard, theY get more money. But yeah, 3.5 more years of this presidency at minimum, and upper bound is 50+ years for having these judges retire/die of natural death? We can't even get Clearance Thomas (misspelling intended) impeached due to, I dunno, bribery?
- fyurule 1y ago[dead]
- chasing 1y ago[flagged]
- RHSeeger 1y ago> A company that uses scam tactics to grab money from people has basically admitted that they don’t believe they can succeed in an open marketplace of goods and services. It's exactly the opposite of that. The fact that scare/scam tactics work is why we add rules to reduce the "openness" of the market. As we find things that companies do that are detrimental to people/society as whole, we add laws and regulations to prevent them from doing that. That is moving _away_ from an open market... to the benefit of society.
- mark_l_watson 1y ago[flagged]
- johnhenry 1y agoPlease, this is a place for discussions about technology. Maybe let's not besmirch it with "both sides" politics?
- gnabgib 1y agoDiscussions: (577 points, 3 days ago, 533 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44504699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44504699 (225 points, 2 days ago, 31 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44505675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44505675
- lesuorac 1y agoThe rules only blocked for the companies that sued? Oh, it's a nation wide injunction; Not really a rule of law ruling then?
- danaris 1y agoWait—I thought nationwide injunctions were no longer allowed? Because they were being used to halt blatantly-illegal actions by the administration?
- lesuorac 1y ago"Given the breadth of the Rule’s coverage, the party-specific vacatur requested by the Commission is not feasible. Accordingly, we grant the petitions for review and vacate the Rule." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca8.110200/gov.uscourts.ca8.110200.00805299737.3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca8.110...
- danaris 1y agoI'm afraid without elaborating at least a little bit on the context, this does not tell me anything about the correctness of my (slightly tongue-in-cheek) statement. Is the case you linked the case from this article? Is it the case from the ruling preventing nationwide injunctions? If the former, does it mean that this injunction gets around the ruling? If the latter, does it provide a limitation on the ruling that would allow this injunction? Not everyone has, nor should they be expected to have, comprehensive knowledge of both legal jargon and the specific details of any given case or set of cases, y'know. This comment mostly reads as "look at me, I know how to quote legalese in a way that only other people who are also on the inside can understand. I am very intelligent."
- lesuorac 1y ago> I'm afraid without elaborating at least a little bit on the context, this does not tell me anything about the correctness of my (slightly tongue-in-cheek) statement. Nationwide injunctions are technically still allowed. The birthright citizenship case mostly means that judges _shouldn't_ do them though. > Is the case you linked the case from this article? Its for the "click-to-cancel" case. I don't think it's too much to ask to open the link and see that the actual text of the lawsuit starts immediately talking about click-to-cancel. > This comment mostly reads as "look at me, I know how to quote legalese in a way that only other people who are also on the inside can understand. I am very intelligent." The comment was more of "our court systems are become partisan hacks". Rules against the party's desires cannot be injected nationwide but rules assisting the party's desires can be. There's certainly more people in this country with birthright citizenship than companies affected by click-to-cancel.
- ghusto 1y agoBlocked due to "procedural deficiencies". LoL
- Pooge 1y agoI strongly advise everyone to use a disposable virtual card; use it to subscribe, wait to get charged and delete it right away. This way, it's impossible for them to charge you for renewal. You can even forget about cancelling.
- ne0flex 1y agoI can't find the post, but I recall reading an instance where someone used a disposable virtual card for a subscription service. After deleting the card, the company was somehow able to charge the user directly on the bank account that was linked to the digital card.
- askl 1y agoI hear this advice but there's one point I don't understand. Aren't you still owing the company money for the subscription? Couldn't they just continue providing the service and just send you a overdue notice and try collecting the money?
- mceachen 1y agoIf you send a clear email to their support channel to cancel your subscription, even if they ignore it, I suspect that may help your case? IANAL and would like to hear if this is a valid strategy.
- okanat 1y agoI don't know how it is in the US. However in Germany, this is a great way to get charged interest on your debt and hefty legal fees. It is also one of the ways to guarantee that you're not getting a new bank account, place to rent or any kind of credit for a while.
- Pooge 1y agoMy account is a debit one so no way this could happen to me. It's one of the few reasons I use Wise.
- bilekas 1y ago> An administrative law judge decided that the economic impact would be more than the $100 million threshold. I do find it fascinating that one administrator has the ability to claim, seemingly from thin air, that it would be more than 100mil and so cancel the entire rule. Wouldn't it be better if the rule was reviewed AFTER the year to determine if modifications or Analysis should be performed? Seems that when it comes to consumer protections in the US the companies are ALWAYS given the benefit of the doubt.
- askonomm 1y agoThat's why I call it United States of Corporations. A world in which people bow down to companies as their overlords, defend them fiercely, at the expense of personal freedom, financial ability, and general life quality. Could also bring parallels to a religion in which its followers commit sacrifices for their deity, and to the point that if there's somewhere that does things differently, like EU, they get upset and want them to stop doing things differently, because there is only one true deity in this world (corporations).
- marcosdumay 1y agoHum... To be fair, it's extremely unlikely that something like this, that impacts about every company that sells subscriptions can have an impact lower than $100 million. I have no idea why the US FTC didn't do an impact analysis. I have no idea even how they decided of deadlines for compliance without one. (It's not easy to write a decision like this without some data.) But yeah, the US consumer protection is really lacking, and this decision only reinforces it.
- Kalanos 1y ago"FTC made a procedural error by failing to come up with a preliminary regulatory analysis, which is required"
- DudeOpotomus 1y agoIdeology is not policy... Policy is hard. Ideology is easy. Reading these comments, it appears that most of you haven't a clue how the sausage is actually made.
- outlore 1y ago<RANT> I recently tried to downgrade Xfinity service. App did not have the button so I had to call. First, I had to battle my way out of the robotic loop. Then, when I finally got to a human support person, they kept trying to upsell me on additional services. I told them that I wanted to downgrade. Since this would probably would hurt their performance score, they redirected me to another rep after fiddling for 30 minutes. When I was transferred, I became more angry. I finally got the new rep to downgrade my service when I threatened to cancel. All-in-all the whole thing took about an hour. </RANT> We absolutely need 1-click cancellation or plan change buttons on these service providers' websites.
- jermaustin1 1y agoWhat is crazy is my last experience with Xfinity (6 months ago) went like this: Me: You guys upped my bill from $45/mo to $110/mo, I'd like to go back to my old price or cancel. Xfinity: Are you sure? Me: Yes. Xfinity: Okay, we are sorry to see you leave, please stay on the line for a survey. It was the first time I spent less than 10 minutes on the phone with them. Thankfully they were our back-up internet when our fiber went down.
- 52-hertz_whale 1y agoThis is why we can't have nice things