Court Nullifies 'Click-To-Cancel' Rule That Required Easy Methods of Cancellation (arstechnica.com) 83
A federal appeals court struck down a "click-to-cancel" rule that would have required companies to make cancelling services as easy as signing up. The Federal Trade Commission rule was scheduled to take effect on July 14 but was vacated by the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The three-judge panel ruled unanimously that the Biden-era FTC failed to follow the full rulemaking process required under US law.
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 initially estimated the rule would not reach that threshold, but an administrative law judge later found compliance costs would exceed $100 million. Despite this finding, the FTC did not conduct the required preliminary analysis.
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 initially estimated the rule would not reach that threshold, but an administrative law judge later found compliance costs would exceed $100 million. Despite this finding, the FTC did not conduct the required preliminary analysis.
So basically... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So basically... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't the hardship computations include the costs incurred by consumers from having difficulty cancelling?
"We're only making plans for Nigel"
Re: (Score:3)
I expect the analysis could have included those, but the problem is they didn't do the analysis at all.
Re:So basically...You need a Lawyer (Score:2)
Re:So basically...You need a Lawyer (Score:4, Interesting)
It's why people hate using Apple Subscriptions. Because Apple makes it too easy to subscribe and unsubscribe to services - you get a neat list of all your subscriptions, and you cancel by turning off that subscription. A dialog pops up to confirm, what the end date is (your subscription is active until it expires). But it's just one click, no muss, no fuss.
Of course, companies hated it because Apple kept a lot of user details private and kept them from doing "retentions". Lots of people used it even though it was a costlier option (since most companies added the Apple tax to the subscription fee if you used Apple). It was just so easy to cancel - you do it without talking to anyone or anyone trying to get you to resubscribe.
Apple made it too easy that companies hated it, so pretty much only Apple uses it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they're just The Poors. Who cares about The Poors? The people making the rules are The Rich, so they make all the rules favor The Rich so The Rich can keep being The Rich without risking any of The Poors sneaking into the club.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:So basically... (Score:5, Informative)
So tell me that's what's been happening over the past few months? Beautiful tariffs introduced and withdrawn on a whim, deportations by the US equivalent of the Gestapo (they tick most of the boxes) on a whim, DOGE destruction spearheaded by someone the anointed one is now considering deporting - that is just skimming the surface.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that government, not those rules. This government has to follow nothing. SCOTUS said so.
Re: (Score:3)
"the government has to follow its own rules"
Bwaaaahahahahhahaha. You might want to drag the thumb on the video progress bar to "LIVE" where the government hasn't been following it's own rules for about 6 months now.
Re: (Score:1)
The President is no longer bound by law so stopping this "tactic" is moot. The door is now wide open. The effect of this decision is merely to reverse a Biden-era action, it does not affect the executive branch now, they operate outside law.
'And lets not forget: this rule would affect more companies than just those that are "effectively stealing from people by making it impossible to cancel."'
Sure, to the benefit of consumers. Can't have that.
Re: (Score:2)
It said previous governments did not follow their own rules. Separately, SCOTUS has said that the current executive doesn't have to follow rules at all.
Curiously, did this violation of rules occur before or after Biden had absolutely immunity? If after, then all that's needed is a claim that Biden ordered it, a claim by the current executive LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
"We know you are effectively stealing from people by making it impossible to cancel, but since its going to "Cost" you so much to stop stealing, we have decided that you can CONTINUE stealing." Tell me its corrupt from the TOP DOWN, without actually saying that ;-D
But it’s a democracy, isn’t there supposed to be a cancel button we can push to eject crap like this that undermines our self interests? Where is the damn . Oh.
Re: (Score:2)
Also deserves some Funny moderation, too. At least that's how I'm interpreting the open Subject.
But in general I feel like there's nothing to do these days but laugh along the way. Doesn't seem to matter if we are heading for a cemetery or a crematorium.
Big surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose the "preliminary regulatory analysis" got lost with the Epstein list.
Re:Big surprise (Score:4)
Pam Bondi three months ago: The Epstein files are on my desk waiting to be released!
Pam Bondi July 2025: Epstein who?
As a bonus here is 12 hours of CCTV footage with a full minute missing. Enjoy losers!
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprised (Score:2)
Not surprised the FTC would side with businesses due to the fact an easy cancellation would mean easier means of losing revenue streams. It's like these businesses have adopted the same techniques of how gyms keep its memberships high due to their difficulty in cancellations. You know it's bad when there is a Friends episode about this topic.
Re:Not surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
When most oopsy's happen to side with biz, Hanlon gets tossed.
Re:Not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet he gets a nice RV and some great vacations out of it. Heck if he keeps this up he might get a supreme court seat.
Re: (Score:3)
.. 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".
My company spent substantially more resources than that preparing for this change.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean your company spent substantially more than $100 million intentionally creating a difficult-to-unsubscribe process. Fuck them.
For the technical aspect of the change, all you'd need to do is add a subscribe/unsubscribe checkbox to whatever your signup process is. That even works for call centers. "Are you calling to start or cancel?" Reuse the "is this a duplicate account" logic and the logic for terminating account should already exist. So from a tech perspective it's one data field being added
Re:Not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
compliance costs would exceed $100 million "unless each business used fewer than twenty-three hours of professional services
Yes. Silly FTC realizing it only takes about 10-minutes editing your account management webpage to add a "Cancel" button that opens a case in your existing Accounting or management system and requires that your people go through them and complete your existing cancellation process directly, instead of spending hours on the phone with each customer trying to prevent them from cancelling.
Thus the cost of compliance is deminimis.
Re: (Score:2)
You're making excuses for mega corporations. Why? Is it just to be a contrarian or do you really drink the kool-aid?
It is so weird to watch people defend mega corporations and billionaires. It's like how back in the day us Americans all watched 25 minute toy commercials masquerading as cartoons and loved it. Bu
Re:Not surprised - all doing it (Score:2)
Isn't this what ALL judges are doing nowadays..........
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is if the outcome would be different if this was a Trump directive.
Re: (Score:2)
This is absolutely no different than the senate waving a wand and saying their steal from the poor budget bill only costs 5 million or whatever made up number Lindsey "I swear I don't tap on others foots in airport bathrooms" Graham made up. The same erroneous and overt logic applies here.
The rule has nothing to do with 100 million dollars. The cancelling is already setup. It's the process of how cancelling is done. It's the rigged trump court system using anyway
Re: (Score:2)
I avoid pull-based auto-pay (PBAP) like the plague, after having been burnt gajillion times. The problem is that opting out of PBAP often has a fee associated with it.
Something needs to be done about that, but the current administration is up the greedy butt of business.
They ignore states rights when it comes to profit rights.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? The courts stopped this, not the FTC. I fail to see how this is a case of the FTC siding with businesses.
Though, with only the right wing's Ferguson, Holyoak and Meador on the commission, it was unlikely they would mount a competent defense for something they were against.
Re: (Score:1)
Elections have consequences.
Re:Not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I knew that good, consumer-friendly, policy would never fly under a GOP administration.
Of course (Score:2)
Following rules are only for republicans. Carefully dotting every I and crossing every T at every step of the rule making process. On the other hand Trump doesn't even cross the T in his signature on his executive orders.
Presidents only have power when kings... I mean republicans rule.
Did you even read the fucking summary? (Score:3, Funny)
These are fucking Democrats dude. If it's one thing I know about my political party and its people they follow every fucking rule and Dot every fucking eye and every t gets crossed. To the point where it's infuriating because they refuse to actually wield power and do their damn jobs to stop fascism.
Re: (Score:1)
Follow every rule and dot every T and cross every I? Democrats?
Uhm sure just like Biden tried multiple times to cancel student loans, ripped open the border, threatened to withhold money from Ukraine if they pursued his son's slush fund buddy's company for corruption, lost 300,000 children - giving many of them to sex traffickers and other criminal trash, and it was all signed by the auto-pen by no one knows who because Biden has been a vegetable but at least his son got a pre-pardon for absolutely anythi
Re: Did you even read the fucking summary? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
you really need a time out. We all know how brainwashed you are, but you're reaching illiterate levels of stupid.
Re: Did you even read the fucking summary? (Score:1)
It wasn't one or even two judges, it was a panel of three appellate court judges who made a unanimous ruling. I don't like it either, and I suspect at least one if not all of them also don't. But their job isn't to tell you whether they like it. As much as you may want it to be, this isn't Leninism. We have laws for a reason, and they're no good if judges can just ignore them.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I asked the other guy are you being contrarian or do you just love mega corporations that much?
I suspect you have a bit of that right wing bias towards authority and supporting it because they bring order to a chaotic world. But otherwise I don't understand why guys like you go out of their way to defend large corporations screwing yourself and everyone over.
Re: Did you even read the fucking summary? (Score:2)
Legislating from the bench would favoring ideology over written law, which they didn't do here. And unlike you, I don't stick people into arbitrary classes and judge them entirely based on that, nor do I deal in your shitty third position politics. In my mind, the law applies to all equally. I only judge you based on your actions. Be they rich or poor, a slob is still a slob. And you're one big fat old slob.
Re: (Score:2)
it was a panel of three appellate court judges
Two Trump appointees and one from Bush V1, forgive me for being skeptical.
Re: (Score:2)
corrupt decision times 1000 = legitimacy
Just change your debit and credit card# (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure about the credit card, but for debit card, that is risky. The bank will still allow charges even after you close your account, and charge you fees if you don't pay the debit balance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have heard of instances where the bank will give the updated card info to the party running the card if they had a previous recurring payment schedule set up.
Re: (Score:3)
bank will give the updated card info to the party running the card if they had a previous recurring payment schedule set up.
All the card networks sell this as a value-add to merchants: Visa Account Updater Service [visa.com]; Mastercard Automatic Billing Updater [mastercard.com]; Discover Global Network Account Updater.
The idea is that when your bank issues you a new card - all the services will be provided the updated card number an expiration date for your convenience as a customer.
On some of them; The issuer can opt out the card
Re: (Score:2)
Better still, my credit card company can generate a new "virtual card" on demand for me with a new number, plus an expiration date that I specify and a spending limit.
Furthermore, never use a debit card if you can use a credit card. The protections on debit cards are all at the discretion of the bank, while credit cards have protections defined by law.
Follow the rules (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to tell the full context of things like this these days, but if legally required process was not followed, then I agree with the decision -- even though the FTC's regulation was a clearly good one for us.
If you stop following the law, it's a slippery slope until it all falls apart. One day it's passing bypassing laws on enacting regulation, the next day you might start deporting people without trial or something.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, though now the republican FTC has the opportunity to pass the rule properly. I'm sure they will, right ?
Re: (Score:2)
That is simpler said than done since the rules change depending on who is reading them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have the same suspicions you and everyone else do, but my comment was more about consistency of outrage.
Challenge hipocrisy by stating clearly that there is no double standard divisive bullshit. I really dislike that I feel compelled to do so, but I just see so much of it and Slashdot is definitely no exception.
Re: (Score:2)
Challenge hipocrisy by stating clearly that there is no double standard divisive bullshit. I really dislike that I feel compelled to do so, but I just see so much of it and Slashdot is definitely no exception.
Hear, hear.
Re:Follow the rules not for biden (Score:1)
Regulatory capture (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out that American companies CAN easily set up quick and easy cancellation systems in other countries which require it.
Took me less than 1 minute to cancel our Disney account.
Money may not be able to buy happiness, but it can buy Judges and Politicians....
Re: (Score:2)
All three Repub judges, Loken, Erickson, Kobes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspected as much.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank goodness we have Trump-appointed judges helping rid us of the deep state!
Alternative (Score:1)
I'll take that every chance I can.
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying you don't have an ISP nor a cell phone plan? You don't make any purchases online? You don't have utility accounts? No mortgage and your landlord accepts cash payments? Hell, my used car came with services I had to cancel and those companies still physically mail me new sign-up offers nearly a year later. We really need better anti-harassment advertising/services laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are essentials, which is why I said I avoid subscriptions "every chance I can".
These are not subscriptions and thus do not require cancellations.
These are also exemptions since they're essential, although I wouldn't categorize them as subscriptions. In my case, I have had the same utility providers since I bought my house, so I've never had the displeasure of cancelling
Two trump judges and one from Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
No surprise at all that they sided with the corporations. Nothing positive for the consumers and people was ever going to get through that gauntlet of wickedness and corruption in the first place.
Fair is fair (Score:2)
This ruling sucks, but let's ask a question: have they been as strict with rules imposed by the current "administration"?
This will hurt their bottom line (Score:2)
I often sign up for services for the short term, for example to watch a streaming service. I do it knowing I can cancel easily. Sometimes I keep them long term. If it becomes difficult to cancel, I wonâ(TM)t sign up.
There was a charity I used to camp tribute to monthly - until I discovered that cancelling requires me to talk to a person. So i stopped
This is why (Score:2)
This is why I subscribe to nothing. Screw you for wanting to screw me.
Welcome to the USA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
California has its own click to cancel law (Score:3)
For California, a click to cancel law went into effect on July 2025.
https://cal.lawsoup.org/legal-guides/consumer/california-click-to-cancel-law-what-you-need-to-know/
It's only the federal-level law which was tossed by the eighth circuit on a technicality.
So I guess the federal appeals courts can toss a regulation and it applies nationwide?
Cancel the charges (Score:2)
No surprise here (Score:2)