←back to thread

586 points gausswho | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.473s | source
Show context
ApolloFortyNine ◴[] No.44511593[source]
From the article

>"While we certainly do not endorse the use of unfair and deceptive practices in negative option marketing, the procedural deficiencies of the Commission's rulemaking process are fatal here,"

As with a lot of judge rulings, and what they're always supposed to do, they ruled on what the actual law is and not just on what sounds good.

>The FTC is required to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis when a rule has an estimated annual economic effect of $100 million or more. The FTC estimated in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that the rule would not have a $100 million effect.

Basically the judges, and a lower court, all agreed that there's no way this rule won't have at last a $100 million in impact, and when something has that much impact there are rules they were meant to follow and didn't. And they rightly commented that if this was allowed to stand, the FTC and every government agency would just always estimate low in these cases.

replies(11): >>44512527 #>>44512776 #>>44512973 #>>44513248 #>>44513526 #>>44514097 #>>44514150 #>>44514382 #>>44514507 #>>44514812 #>>44515256 #
gmd63 ◴[] No.44512973[source]
I don't buy that argument. The issue is companies deliberately built complexity on top of their existing systems to make it harder to cancel. The added complexity that costs a lot of money to fix is a result of their unfair and deceptive practices.

An enormous amount of deadweight loss would be returned to the economy if they simply implemented a much simpler design of click to cancel and avoided the unfair and deceptive practices in the first place.

replies(2): >>44513061 #>>44513971 #
sebzim4500 ◴[] No.44513061[source]
Isn't the argument that making it easier to cancel subscriptions means that more customers will cancel and the cumulative effect across the industry will be much more than $100M?
replies(3): >>44513119 #>>44513700 #>>44514031 #
1. gmd63 ◴[] No.44513700[source]
Why would anyone be concerned with the industry vs the economy? Especially when it’s an industry engaged in foul play?

Any dollar “lost” as a result of customers being able to cancel results in customers gaining more money to empower industries that are actually productive.

replies(1): >>44514974 #
2. sebzim4500 ◴[] No.44514974[source]
Obviously I agree with you morally speaking but apparently the law doesn't.