←back to thread

US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

(arstechnica.com)
586 points gausswho | 1 comments | 08 Jul 25 22:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | 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 #
caesil ◴[09 Jul 25 14:59 UTC] No.44510834[source]▶
If you actually bother to click through and read the article, you'd find the court expressed sympathies with the intent of the rule, but the FTC "is required to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis when a rule has an estimated annual economic effect of $100 million or more", and they did not do that.

The blame here belongs to the FTC for its rushed and sloppy process that put the rule on shaky ground legally.

replies(11): >>44510991 #>>44511010 #>>44511221 #>>44511297 #>>44511415 #>>44512154 #>>44512286 #>>44512289 #>>44514076 #>>44514547 #>>44518196 #
1. pavon ◴[09 Jul 25 19:47 UTC] No.44514076[source]▶
In this case, I'm guessing the FTC knew it was a long shot and took the Hail Mary pass anyway. If they had done the preliminary regulatory analysis the ruling wouldn't have been completed during the Biden administration. So they gambled that it would be better to take their chances with the courts than with the next administration, given both Republican commissioners voted against the rule. Which makes this less of a disappointment to me that it would otherwise.