←back to thread

US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

(arstechnica.com)
575 points gausswho | 10 comments | 08 Jul 25 22:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.21s | source | bottom
1. standardUser ◴[09 Jul 25 03:10 UTC] No.44506040[source]▶
The 8th circuit court of appeals is the most conservative, with only one judge appointed by a Democratic president.
replies(3): >>44506118 #>>44509769 #>>44513220 #
2. dmix ◴[09 Jul 25 03:34 UTC] No.44506118[source]▶
What about the earlier administrative judge who warned FTC they were ignoring established rules when it was reviewed the first time, then FTC proceeded to ignore that judge and passed it anyway, which resulted it in being in front of this appeals court?
3. bluGill ◴[09 Jul 25 13:24 UTC] No.44509769[source]▶
In this case it quickly becomes clear that the court was right. The ends do not justify the means. Score one for conservatives for following/enforcing the law I guess.
replies(1): >>44509885 #
4. thrance ◴[09 Jul 25 13:34 UTC] No.44509885[source]▶
Weird how they only enforce the law when it serves their interests though.
replies(1): >>44511525 #
5. bluGill ◴[09 Jul 25 15:48 UTC] No.44511525{3}[source]▶
That is false. The conservatives have made it clear that they support the rule, but it needs to be done right. The real question is why are liberals willing to ignore the law?
replies(2): >>44512033 #>>44512122 #
6. standardUser ◴[09 Jul 25 16:34 UTC] No.44512033{4}[source]▶
> The real question is why are liberals willing to ignore the law?

I hope you don't get accidentally deported to a foreign prison by those lofty conservatives who are SO concerned with following the letter of the law.

But yeah, when a far right court digs up a technicality that just happens to serve the corporate interests that line the pockets of those who appointed these judges well... that's the justice you must truly value.

replies(1): >>44512846 #
7. thrance ◴[09 Jul 25 16:42 UTC] No.44512122{4}[source]▶
You're completely brainwashed, this is sad to see. You're getting fucked over as much as the rest of us, but instead of fighting back you're asking for more. Purely out of spite and hate for us. How sad.
8. bluGill ◴[09 Jul 25 17:42 UTC] No.44512846{5}[source]▶
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I do not defend conservatives when they don't follow the letter of the law. Except perhaps in cases where the law itself is unjust - however that is not your argument here so we can ignore that. There have also been cases where I didn't understand the full law and so have had to change my mind once I realized what I'm missing - but that doesn't seem to be the case here either.

On topic is a violation of the law. It isn't just a technicality here either, it is a big deal that when there are large effects of a potential rule we ensure we take the time to figure out what the real effects of it are. There are all too often unexpected downsides to some rule/law and when those downsides are bad enough the results can be worse than the problem you are trying to prevent. (it might not be in this case - but time was not given to figure out if that is the case so we don't know)

replies(1): >>44513013 #
9. standardUser ◴[09 Jul 25 17:58 UTC] No.44513013{6}[source]▶
If you follow this stuff enough, you know that any court worth it's salt can come up with justifications for any ruling it wants, that they are often dissenting opinions (statistically much less so in this, the most conservative court in the country), and that another, totally unrelated technicality will sometimes be 'discovered' by a subsequent court in subsequent appeals. I mean just look at the absurd acrobatics going on in the SC these days.

But I love the IDEA of then justice system you're pretending exists.

10. bell-cot ◴[09 Jul 25 18:18 UTC] No.44513220[source]▶
For those unfamiliar - that's one "D" judge, out of 17 judges on this court. And that one "D" wasn't one of the three judges hearing this case.

And yet the three "R" judges who were (hearing this case) chose to editorialize in their opinion ( https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca8.110... ) about how the FTC was the Good Guys here...just hopelessly incompetent Good Guys.

(Yeah, it seems trivial to argue that the Dem's are also hopelessly incompetent - at getting "D" judges onto Federal Court benches.)