While the FTC's intention to protect consumers is commendable, this new "click-to-cancel" rule may have unintended consequences that could harm both businesses and consumers. Here are some key points of dissent:
1. *Overreach of Regulatory Authority*: The FTC's broad application of this rule to "almost all negative option programs in any media" may exceed its statutory authority. This sweeping approach could face legal challenges.
2. *Increased Costs for Businesses*: Implementing new cancellation systems and processes could be costly, especially for small businesses. These costs may ultimately be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
3. *Potential for Increased Fraud*: Making cancellation too easy might inadvertently increase the risk of unauthorized cancellations by bad actors, leading to service disruptions for legitimate subscribers.
4. *Loss of Customer Retention Opportunities*: By prohibiting businesses from discussing plan modifications or reasons to keep existing agreements during cancellation, the rule may deprive consumers of potentially beneficial alternatives or information.
5. *Inconsistency with Other Industries*: The rule may create an uneven playing field, as some industries (like telecommunications or utilities) often have different cancellation processes due to the nature of their services.
6. *Consumer Responsibility*: The rule may unfairly shift the burden of subscription management entirely onto businesses, potentially reducing consumer responsibility and awareness.
7. *Innovation Stifling*: Strict regulations on subscription models could discourage innovation in service offerings and pricing structures that might benefit consumers.
8. *Compliance Challenges*: The 180-day implementation period may not be sufficient for all businesses to comply, especially given the broad scope of the rule.
While consumer protection is crucial, a more balanced approach that considers the needs of both consumers and businesses might be more effective. The FTC should consider a more nuanced rule that addresses specific abusive practices rather than imposing broad restrictions on all negative option programs.