←back to thread

222 points andsoitis | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.606s | source
1. neogodless ◴[] No.44505922[source]
This might be a better link, with some deeper dive into where the panel of 3 judges disagreed with the FTC over some language about procedural requirements.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/07/us-court-cancels...

replies(2): >>44506309 #>>44506808 #
2. tbrownaw ◴[] No.44506309[source]
> might be a better link

It's definitely a much better link.

It actually describes what the ftc did wrong and even links to the decision. The guardian link doesn't do either, and so doesn't actually provide for meaningful discussion.

replies(1): >>44506820 #
3. tomhow ◴[] No.44506808[source]
We moved the comments to the submission with this URL, thanks!
4. gtsop ◴[] No.44506820[source]
I admit i half-read this second link, but the essential nuance it adds is that the ruling process didn't allow the violators (see: companies making it extremely hard to come out of a subscription) to do their homework in order to drill holes into this regulation that would have stopped their immoral buisness practices.

I understand there is a "by the book" process that should be respected, but this seems very fishy to me. I am certain the regulation would have passed had the tables been turned (meaning the companies would benefit from that said regulation)