←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: 0.24s | 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. didibus ◴[09 Jul 25 20:43 UTC] No.44514547[source]▶
I don't understand, they did an estimate and found it below 100$ million. That seems to have followed the process. An estimate can always be challenged and is just a best effort prediction. Now it seems this create a pretty flaky ground for precedence that the FTC simply can never estimate less than 100$ million as it could always be challenged in court, what if it was more? And they now have to always follow the more effortful process of assuming it is more than 100$ million.

It really seems like a weird line in the sand that the court will just randomly decide on a case by case now, with the FTC having no way to know if the court will agree with their estimate or not.