FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

Posted elsewhere in this thread but here is the reasoning why from Melissa Holyoak, who voted no. This rule goes further than just the cancellation mentioned in this article and there are some legitimate concerns with that. It is unclear but I think Melissa Holyoak would have voted yes if it was just the cancellation rule.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/holyoak-dissent...

Automatic renewal is convenient and appreciated when you like the service.

It's a dark-pattern underhanded dirty trick when you don't.

This is why you shouldn't let ChatGPT do your thinking for you. Skimming is an important art.

Her basic points are:

1. The FTC doesn't have the authority to make this rule, and in government there must be a hard line between "I want this" and "this is legal" unless you want a dictatorship.

2. The reason the FTC has so many Congressionally-enacted laws to follow is because of a history of overstepping its legal authority. The more they push the boundary, the less authority the FTC will have in the long-run.

3. The rule is too broad. Broad regulation is bad because it leaves too much legal wiggle-room for violators with deep pockets and smart lawyers. At the same time, small businesses who may be acting legitimately can't know they'll be accused of violating overly broad rules, or afford to defend themselves if they draw government scrutiny.

4. The FTC has a specific procedure it needs to follow for making a rule but they didn't follow that procedure.

5. Because of the above, the rule will be challenged by BigCo and struck down in court, wasting time and harming the FTC's reputation.

I'm hopeful about a "Click to Cancel" future (who wouldn't be?) but it's pretty hard to dismiss those points as "typical pro-business grift".

If someone were just attempting to maintain a "pro-business grift", wouldn't this be exactly the argument they'd make? That the FTC is, effectively, legally toothless?

So might not be legal?

I mean, making rules that will end up getting over turned in courts, setting a precedent is also exactly how you end up making institutions toothless (see, the recent supreme court decision that overturned Chevron). I'm totally for this type of regulation though, it's just that I don't think that their argument is bad at all.

I think this is just the form that "typical pro-business grift" takes these days. "This [entity] has no legal authority to do [obviously good thing]" is a favorite justification for obstructionists in power at every level of government to ensure nothing gets done. They seem to conveniently drop this position when the action in question is pro-business.