- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Not surprised, just disappointed. We went from the most pro consumer WH to what is shaping up to be the worst WH for consumer rights in my lifetime.
You must log in or register to comment.
So let’s all cut down (or better yet, cut out) subscribing to things. That way we don’t need an easy way to cancel and everyone will be happy … except for the predators that live off of ripping people off with subscriptions.
Engadget seems to have the least amount of information on this topic. The Ars Technica article went into a lot more detail.
I think this is bad in the short term, but good in the long run. The ruling doesn’t stop the FTC from going through the process again for the Click-to-Cancel rule. They just have to follow the correct procedures. In this case they underestimated the annual economic effect that their rule would have, and at a certain threshold they are required to have a preliminary regulatory analysis for a rule.
The administration can weaponize the FTC if they really want to, so the courts ruling that the FTC has to follow the correct procedures helps to at least keep some things in check.
Oh, don’t pretend that a Republican measure is going to be put under the same scrutiny. This is just an easy excuse so to keep people like you placated with a thin veneer of respectability.
The administration is going to weaponize the FTC anyway, and the supreme Court will back THAT to the hilt.
As for economic effect… That isn’t something the court should be concerned with anyway! Who cares if it’s profitable if it’s illegal!
Oh I’m not pretending that at all and I don’t see how I implied that in any way. What I’m trying point out is that you’ll have precedence on your side when going to court if the FTC does the same thing for a Republican measure.
What do you mean by “people like you?”
I’m not against the click-to-cancel rule, we definitely need something like that.
As for economic effect… That isn’t something the court should be concerned with anyway!
The court ruling wasn’t on the economic effect of the click-to-cancel rule. The ruling was that the FTC skipped their own requirements to make this rule.
By no means would we want customers of digital companies to easily cancel. This would remove revenue from the hands of billionaires! Once these services get your credit card they should be able to charge you again and again as long as they’d like. It’s a customer’s obligation to support billionaires’ yatch payments.
- federal judges
That’s almost literally the opposite of what the judge’s actually said.
They specifically called out “the use of unfair and deceptive practices”, but ruled the FTC has to follow it’s own procedures and, in this case, did not.
Once the FTC follows it’s own processes and procedures, it can institute the same policy.
Gotta love some hard hitting coverage by Engadget, followed immediately by “Best Amazon Prime Day 2025 deals.”
It is absolutely hilarious how bad their site is during big daddy’s minor sale. An entire week of no news just, “50 cents off this humidifier.”
I have the same problem with Wired. They have some great content, interspersed with articles that are basically ads for Amazon. Gotta pay the bills I guess.
The sad reality is that good journalism is expensive but no one wants to pay for it.
Even we, the readers who benefit from it, rarely want to actually pay for it.
I think it’s kind of a cold start, bootstrap, problem. I don’t want to pay for journalism when I don’t have faith it’ll be good, but since no one’s paying for it it’s not good
Perhaps. Looks like both CNN and NBC News have “stories” on their front pages as well.
Corruption in the USA? Perish the thought. /S
