This 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.
I'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.
I’d argue that it costs more to implement and maintain dark patterns in the software than to do happy paths. It also costs customers time and money to jump through hoops to end service you don’t want and need.
In MAGA terms - if your business cannot survive in free market competition without scam schemes - it’s “unamerican” and shouldn’t be a business.
They absolutely do not need 23 hours of lawyers + programmers + designers + etc to comply with the law.
There are numerous states with an existing "click to cancel" regulation. If you're compliant with those states then that implementation was federally compliant as well.
The only huge cost is a drop in revenue not an increase in cost.
mandating changes for power generation to stop polluting as much, for car manufacturers to make safer cars, for chemical plants to stop dumping toxic waste in water supplies all also cost a lot, but we make them do it anyway
As 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.
> Otherwise you end up in a world where there is no rule of law; and in turn no rights except for those in power.
glances around nervously
I guess my hope here was at least there would be _something_. Trying to unsubscribe from spam is an absolute disaster now. CAN-SPAM is a joke. The only option I really have is blocking senders, which is an endless game of whack-a-mole.
i use throw-away email aliases then set them to bounce/reject all email after im done with them
i discovered a quest lab in my area that was either hacked or had someone working there that sold my email address to scammers since it was the only place i ever gave that unique email to. scary world!
I agree in principal. The more interesting development would be if the current FTC takes this as a queue to silently drop the initiative, or if the single judge who decided it would have a different impact than the FTC claimed was acting in good faith
I 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
That'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).
Hum... 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.
"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."
I 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.
I 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?
If 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.
I 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.
Failing to pay a bill does not make the debt go away. If this is a $5 thing then yeah they're not going to bother sending it to collections, but this will turn out badly for anything big enough that they do.
In EU we mostly use debit cards (virtual and real), as having debt isn't something most people want to have, and credit cards inherently mean debt. Apart from that, you can't really use the card for payments without authorization. Someone types in my card's info in some payment form? I get a SmartID (https://www.smart-id.com/) verification request, further making credit cards not very useful (I understand security is why North Americans use credit cards?).
Being liable for preauthorized charges sounds reasonable to me unless we're talking about an expanding use of preauthorization into areas it wasn't used before. It's rare for me to encounter this apart from hotels, car rentals?
Readit News
(577 points, 3 days ago, 533 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44504699
(225 points, 2 days ago, 31 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44505675
In MAGA terms - if your business cannot survive in free market competition without scam schemes - it’s “unamerican” and shouldn’t be a business.
There are numerous states with an existing "click to cancel" regulation. If you're compliant with those states then that implementation was federally compliant as well.
The only huge cost is a drop in revenue not an increase in cost.
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.
Deleted Comment
glances around nervously
I guess my hope here was at least there would be _something_. Trying to unsubscribe from spam is an absolute disaster now. CAN-SPAM is a joke. The only option I really have is blocking senders, which is an endless game of whack-a-mole.
i discovered a quest lab in my area that was either hacked or had someone working there that sold my email address to scammers since it was the only place i ever gave that unique email to. scary world!
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.
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.
Dead Comment
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, it's a nation wide injunction; Not really a rule of law ruling then?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca8.110...
This way, it's impossible for them to charge you for renewal. You can even forget about cancelling.
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.
Yes, this is a ridiculous state of things, but such is the world we live in, here in North America anyway.
Then you get sent to collections and pay with your credit report