←back to thread

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

(www.ftc.gov)
1737 points pseudolus | 6 comments | 16 Oct 24 13:09 UTC | HN request time: 1.052s | source | bottom
Show context
ajkjk ◴[16 Oct 24 14:37 UTC] No.41859541[source]▶
There are so many things like this that have needed fixing for such a long time. The fact that something is happening, even slowly, is so heartening.

If your reaction is wondering if this is legal then you should be interested in the passing of new laws that make it unequivocally legal. Society should be able to govern itself.

replies(7): >>41859610 #>>41859669 #>>41860003 #>>41860390 #>>41861087 #>>41861257 #>>41861766 #
thefourthchime ◴[16 Oct 24 15:41 UTC] No.41860390[source]▶
Now, let's institute an actual price rule. I can't rent an Airbnb or book a plane ticket without being lied to about what the actual prices is.
replies(10): >>41860523 #>>41860525 #>>41860538 #>>41860576 #>>41860589 #>>41860618 #>>41860672 #>>41861141 #>>41861200 #>>41861352 #
cogman10 ◴[16 Oct 24 15:51 UTC] No.41860538[source]▶
"Fees" on top of the top line price should be illegal. It's just a way to smuggle in a 100% increase in the purchase price to get an initial buy in for a product. It is super scammy.

Heck, I would even take this a step further and say that taxes as well should always be fully included in the topline price. If a company wants to add a breakdown of how much went to taxes, I'm ok with that.

The sticker price should always be the full price.

replies(3): >>41860843 #>>41860971 #>>41861086 #
deanputney ◴[16 Oct 24 16:25 UTC] No.41860971[source]▶
Taxes should also be included in the advertised price, then. Just imagine!
replies(2): >>41861091 #>>41861287 #
1. Kon-Peki ◴[16 Oct 24 16:38 UTC] No.41861091[source]▶
That would be nice, but there is a LOT of background work before that is feasible (in the US). As it currently stands, for many products a vendor would need to know who you are and where you live before they could quote you a total price. That's unacceptable.
replies(2): >>41861220 #>>41861589 #
2. perfectstorm ◴[16 Oct 24 16:51 UTC] No.41861220[source]▶
other countries have figured that out even countries with multiple levels of taxation like in the U.S. it's not an unsolvable problem.
replies(1): >>41861466 #
3. Kon-Peki ◴[16 Oct 24 17:18 UTC] No.41861466[source]▶
> not an unsolvable problem

I never said it was. In fact, I specifically said that there is work to do before making the rule about listing all prices inclusive of taxes.

replies(1): >>41863377 #
4. Symbiote ◴[16 Oct 24 17:31 UTC] No.41861589[source]▶
In Europe they make a best guess based on IP location, and if logged in using the account address or previous delivery address.

Then the price may change at the checkout if you put in a different/unexpected delivery address.

5. perfectstorm ◴[16 Oct 24 20:15 UTC] No.41863377{3}[source]▶
but you did say that figuring out the final price is "unacceptable"? why is it unacceptable? my point is that other countries have figured out a way to display the final prices, but USA still hasn't figured out how to do it or they don't have any plans to do it.
replies(1): >>41895218 #
6. Kon-Peki ◴[20 Oct 24 13:24 UTC] No.41895218{4}[source]▶
As things stand currently, it would be unacceptably intrusive as you have to collect information on all shoppers whether they purchase or not.

Do the pre-work first, and then make a rule about displaying the final price.