←back to thread

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

(www.ftc.gov)
1737 points pseudolus | 2 comments | 16 Oct 24 13:09 UTC | HN request time: 0.515s | source
Show context
Spoom ◴[16 Oct 24 14:19 UTC] No.41859299[source]▶
Does the FTC actually have the power to set rules like this effectively now that Chevron deference isn't a thing? I'd imagine e.g. the New York Times, among others, will quickly sue to stop this, no?
replies(10): >>41859333 #>>41859374 #>>41859467 #>>41859485 #>>41859700 #>>41859742 #>>41860115 #>>41861055 #>>41862301 #>>41863207 #
xracy ◴[16 Oct 24 18:40 UTC] No.41862301[source]▶
We gotta stop giving SCOTUS credit for bad decisions when they make unpopular opinions. SCOTUS is not supposed to make legislation, and if they are going to try and override Chevron from the bench without legislation, then we have to ignore them.

SCOTUS' power/respect only goes as far as they're actually listening to the will of Americans. This is not representing Americans if they override. Same for abortion (just legality not anything about enforcement), same for presidential immunity.

We have expectations, and they do not align with SCOTUS, so SCOTUS is not a valid interpretive institution. "The Supreme Court has made their decision, let's see them enforce it."

replies(3): >>41862417 #>>41865037 #>>41866868 #
1. minkzilla ◴[16 Oct 24 23:45 UTC] No.41865037[source]▶
I don't agree with overruling Chevron but saying "if they are going to try and override Chevron from the bench without legislation, then we have to ignore them" makes no sense because Chevron was not made by legislation in the first place. It was made by SCOTUS. It comes from the case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
replies(1): >>41865820 #
2. xracy ◴[17 Oct 24 02:18 UTC] No.41865820[source]▶
I'm pretty sure Chevron deference includes some deferred powers of congress to presidential administrative agencies. Which is what I'm referring to here. I could be wrong about that.

But the rules I'm thinking of are more about Roe V. Wade, which don't make sense in their interpretation of the laws.

It also goes to the heart of the arbitrariness of the rulings if they can overturn previous precedent 'just because they want to' which is a lot of the logic of the rulings.

Brown v. Board is famous for not just overturning the precedent, but for giving a reasonable understanding of the precedent was meaningfully unfair in the previous setup.