←back to thread

US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

(arstechnica.com)
573 points gausswho | 5 comments | 08 Jul 25 22:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.819s | source
Show context
fwlr ◴[09 Jul 25 02:42 UTC] No.44505910[source]▶
The FTC was warned at the time that they were flouting required procedures and that their rule would therefore not survive legal scrutiny. Lo and behold it did not.
replies(3): >>44506022 #>>44507869 #>>44508126 #
dboreham ◴[09 Jul 25 03:07 UTC] No.44506022[source]▶
Because systematic corruption presumably?
replies(3): >>44506139 #>>44506321 #>>44507715 #
1. jibe ◴[09 Jul 25 03:39 UTC] No.44506139[source]▶
If you are sniffing out corruption, aren’t the ones flouting required procedures likely the corrupt ones?
replies(3): >>44506211 #>>44507990 #>>44508135 #
2. Aeolun ◴[09 Jul 25 03:56 UTC] No.44506211[source]▶
Kinda, but corruption in my favor is unlikely to see me complain about it.
replies(1): >>44508014 #
3. wqaatwt ◴[09 Jul 25 09:45 UTC] No.44507990[source]▶
What if the “required procedures” are held in place by corruption?
4. wrasee ◴[09 Jul 25 09:50 UTC] No.44508014[source]▶
That’s obviously no justification, all corruption is in someone’s favour. Society functions by rules. Break those founding principles and you break everything.
5. hshdhdhj4444 ◴[09 Jul 25 10:10 UTC] No.44508135[source]▶
Almost never.

Whistleblowers are almost always revealing information that they are legally prevented from revealing, otherwise you wouldn’t need a whistleblower. A simple FOIA request would suffice.