←back to thread

US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

(arstechnica.com)
573 points gausswho | 7 comments | 08 Jul 25 22:42 UTC | HN request time: 2.261s | source | bottom
Show context
bpodgursky ◴[09 Jul 25 02:56 UTC] No.44505969[source]▶
From a different article [1]:

> But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said the FTC erred in its rulemaking process by failing to produce a preliminary regulatory analysis, a statutory requirement for rules whose annual effect on the national economy would exceed $100 million.

> The FTC had argued that it was not required to prepare the preliminary analysis because its initial estimate of the rule’s impact on the national economy was under the $100 million threshold — even though ultimately the presiding officer determined the impact exceeded the threshold.

This is a case where congress really did pass a concrete law, and the court is requiring the FTC to follow it. Sucks that a reasonable rule is getting voided for the sloppiness but I really don't think the courts are indefensibly out of line.

[1] https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5390731-appeals-court-...

replies(7): >>44506005 #>>44506145 #>>44506160 #>>44506303 #>>44507085 #>>44507173 #>>44508133 #
jordanb ◴[09 Jul 25 03:03 UTC] No.44506005[source]▶
From googling apparently the "presiding officer" is appointed by the FTC chair. So it sounds like the FTC spiked its own case.
replies(1): >>44506057 #
1. bpodgursky ◴[09 Jul 25 03:16 UTC] No.44506057[source]▶
It was Lina Khan. She just felt strongly about going out the way she came in — losing every single case.
replies(2): >>44506797 #>>44509402 #
2. fxtentacle ◴[09 Jul 25 06:13 UTC] No.44506797[source]▶
Illumina, Tapestry, Kroger, Lockheed Martin would disagree.

Also, didn’t she „build“ the right to repair laws?

3. jordanb ◴[09 Jul 25 12:47 UTC] No.44509402[source]▶
There is a new FTC administration.

I interpret this as being the incoming FTC wanted to kill this but not withdrawal (due to bad optics).

They wanted to lose the case and did so by changing a judgment they controlled so that the rule could fail a legal procedural challenge.

replies(1): >>44509698 #
4. bluGill ◴[09 Jul 25 13:18 UTC] No.44509698[source]▶
It better fits the facts that the incoming FTC wants this, but they want to do the job right. At least some of the incoming FTC was in place when they rule was passed in the first place and their statements then say they wanted the rule but they wanted the correct procedures done so that it would stand up in court.
replies(1): >>44511272 #
5. jordanb ◴[09 Jul 25 15:28 UTC] No.44511272{3}[source]▶
If they wanted to change how they implement the rule they could have withdrawn it rather than continue to an adverse judgement in court.

Basically the FTC is required to go through a lengthy (probably multi-year) impact analysis if they determine that the rule will cause more than $100 million in impact to the US economy.

The previous administration determined that this rule would not meet the threshold, allowing quick implementation. The current administration then said "actually we think this would meet the threshold" giving the court an excuse to strike the rule down.

If the trump administration is correct that trapping people in gotya-contracts by making it difficult to cancel really constitutes $100 million of economic activity in the US, I think that says that there's something truly rotten about the basis of our economy.

replies(1): >>44512870 #
6. bluGill ◴[09 Jul 25 17:44 UTC] No.44512870{4}[source]▶
You would have attacked them for withdrawing the rule as well. You have setup a can't win situation and then are attacking someone for losing.

If Liberals really wanted this rule they would have followed the law. Evidence is the conservatives when this was passed objected because the law was not being followed. They were then left in this can't win situation.

replies(1): >>44513198 #
7. jordanb ◴[09 Jul 25 18:16 UTC] No.44513198{5}[source]▶
I would have criticized them for getting rid of a rule that protects consumers, yes.

But it would have been far more honest than what they've done here, where they set up a kabuki theater legal defense so that they can avoid the bad politics of killing a very good rule to protect monied special interests.