←back to thread

US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

(arstechnica.com)
574 points gausswho | 1 comments | 08 Jul 25 22:42 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
John23832 ◴[09 Jul 25 13:14 UTC] No.44509670[source]▶
What consumer does this serve at all? What citizen does this serve at all?

This only serves to allow firms to erect effort barriers to keep rent seeking fro their customers. The "gotcha" that the Khan FTC didn't "follow the rules making process" is parallel construction.

replies(10): >>44509742 #>>44509759 #>>44510095 #>>44510337 #>>44510719 #>>44510834 #>>44511178 #>>44511684 #>>44511936 #>>44516884 #
rayiner ◴[09 Jul 25 13:23 UTC] No.44509759[source]▶
Courts don’t make decisions on whether executive rules are told or bad, serve consumers or not. The main oversight they have is ensuring compliance with procedural rules and statutory technicalities.
replies(5): >>44509943 #>>44510184 #>>44510324 #>>44510810 #>>44511864 #
miltonlost[dead post] ◴[09 Jul 25 13:41 UTC] No.44509943[source]▶
[flagged]
rayiner ◴[09 Jul 25 13:51 UTC] No.44510046[source]▶
The non-Federalist Society folks think that “emanations from penumbras” is constitutional law. How can right wing judges even compete with that?

I think we may have drastically different understandings of what “the law” is.

replies(4): >>44510180 #>>44510281 #>>44510387 #>>44510399 #
syntheticcdo ◴[09 Jul 25 14:03 UTC] No.44510180[source]▶
Note that the court case that first invoked “emanations from penumbras” involved a Connecticut law banning the the use of contraceptives. Do you believe such a restriction should be constitutional?
replies(1): >>44510420 #
rayiner ◴[09 Jul 25 14:24 UTC] No.44510420[source]▶
If we’re talking about what “should be constitutional,” we’re no longer talking about “the law” but instead policy or philosophy.

Regulating the “public health, welfare, and morals” is the prerogative of state legislatures. So the question is whether there is anything in the constitution that overrides that general power. Resort to “emanations from penumbras” is a concession that there isn’t.

By the way, this isn’t even some U.S.-centric take. The constitutional law in most western democracies leaves regulation of drugs to the discretion of the legislature.

replies(2): >>44511186 #>>44525401 #
syntheticcdo ◴[09 Jul 25 15:23 UTC] No.44511186{3}[source]▶
I'm asking about your personal opinion: in Griswold v. Connecticut should the Supreme Court have upheld states right to ban access to all contraceptives, including condoms?
replies(2): >>44513823 #>>44514202 #
1. rayiner ◴[09 Jul 25 19:18 UTC] No.44513823{4}[source]▶
Your question asks whether I “believe such a restriction should be constitutional.” I’m obviously not in a place to decide what “should” or “should not” be in the constitution—the document is what it is.

If your question is whether I think the Griswold was correctly decided, the answer is obviously not. Regulating access to medications obviously falls within the police power of state governments, and I don’t think the constitution has a special carve out for particular types of medications. In fact I think this was an extraordinarily easy case as a legal matter, and the fact that the Supreme Court got it wrong demonstrates how intellectually sloppy a lot of mid-20th century precedent was.