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.

> not ideal

Yet somehow the best you got

Lol

Any examples of American company having worse customer experience than European ones?

I will give you 2 for the opposite: Amazon and Apple do no question asked refunds all the time. Much higher bar than European regulators require.

The FTC have no say in choosing to exist or not exist, or what laws are passed that they are supposed to enforce. In some cases, an agency intentionally choosing to not carry out their duties would even be breaking the law and subject to penalty or punishment. How the FTC goes about interpreting their duties and then the court system correcting their behavior when they disagree or misbehave is the system working as intended. If they don't have laws to interpret for an issue though, that's a legislative problem.

The real question is why isn't congress doing their job? They control both the existence and funding of the FTC and additionally the laws the FTC are tasked with interpreting and enforcing. If congress is unfit for purpose they should be replaced.

Even if we were to accept your premise (if broken, throw out), it's still Congress that decides whether the FTC exists or not.

The ftc isn’t supposed to create laws though. I tend to overshoot on the consumer’s side, but the ftc is overstepping with actions like this. There should be a law passed on this point and then ftc can enforce. Or ftc can sue based on existing law and let courts buy their interpretation.

When we “overshot left” it was by electing a centrist cishet man who identified as Christian and had different colored skin from the prior presidents.

Overshooting right has us building concentration camps.

Surely you're joking, right? The current administration building concentration camps and cutting medicare for 12 millions people is just balancing... what? Obamacare? Don't be ridiculous.

When has the US actually overshot left though? There was a short period of social justice awareness, but that didn't translate to actual leftwing economic legislation. Even protests and movements with left wing goals were co-opted by the nominally center-right establishment and neutered.

This both-sides stuff gets me, man. Our history is by and large very right wing and every time there's a flutter of left leaning ideas, people chalk it up to some far-left political success and therefore the far right backlash is deserved, as if things ever actually went left in the first place.

I think the century of American dominance is probably over. Maybe we can fight our way back to having a functional government, maybe not. I think either way our position in the world order is already diminished and will steadily diminish further. I can see a future where America is a strange backwater, reliant on resource extraction and rules over by a grubby and constantly shifting mafia state.

The Asian Financial Crisis in 1997: deregulated capital flows allowed speculators to rapidly pull money out of countries like Thailand, causing their currencies to collapse. The IMF stepped in, but their 'rescue' packages demanded strict conditions- forced privatization, and further deregulation, which often made things worse. And let's not forget Black Wednesday, when speculators broke the Bank of England. This was called "a textbook case of a speculative attack enabled by capital mobility" which is a core neoliberal policy. Just like all politics: never trust the meaning or identity of something derived from it's headline, title, name, or label- those are always the first lies we are told.

"Neoliberal" means free markets. Most US conservatives insisted on free markets from the 1980s until 2016. They claimed it would benefit the overall US economy (and maybe it has), and they claimed those benefits would be shared by all Americans (which listen to them now).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

doesn't stop it from being sent to collections.

zombie purchasers is the business model of basically every gym. they lose money on the people that actually show up. the money makers are the people who sign up for a membership, go once or twice and then forget to cancel (or purchased a full year at once)

The fact that it takes more than 24 hours to put a 1 click cancel button is alien to me.

Why are you pasting the article when it doesn't include any warnings that were given to the ftc at the time?

Ah so a Trump appointee and 2 judges appointed by Trump. Now that's a group I would never trust to follow the law.

That commissioner also hated the fact that consumers were going to stop being robbed by big corps.

But, if you want to make it look like you are doing the right thing but don't want to be remembered as having done that right thing, maybe this was the right thing to do given that now it won't be done.

Right, if they were screwing over customers, we’d call it disruption and give them a medal, if not $1 billion dollars. Since they’re trying to help people, we wag our fingers at them.

Almost never.

Whistleblowers are almost always revealing information that they are legally prevented from revealing, otherwise you wouldn’t need a whistleblower. A simple FOIA request would suffice.

Kinda, but corruption in my favor is unlikely to see me complain about it.

What if the “required procedures” are held in place by corruption?

revolut and others still try to charge you, even if you cancel the VIRTUAL card. when you ask them, why and how they you do that, they say you have some sort of agreement for the subs. service and you need to end it on your own via them. Bank can't do that?? they said something like that to me. So they literally support the dark pattent side, not on your side obv.

The bar should be where changes happen to move in the correct direction easily, while moving in the incorrect direction harder. If the rule was to "force companies to have confusing cancel processes", the rulemaking process would have zero burdens, because the "potential gains" of doing so would be enormous.

I think we should absolutely lower this particular bar.

When bad actors have a low bar but good actors have a high bar, the country is bound to collapse. Look at how many rules the current regime is flouting. But the other side has to dot every i for some reason.

There is a new FTC administration.

I interpret this as being the incoming FTC wanted to kill this but not withdrawal (due to bad optics).

They wanted to lose the case and did so by changing a judgment they controlled so that the rule could fail a legal procedural challenge.

Illumina, Tapestry, Kroger, Lockheed Martin would disagree.

Also, didn’t she „build“ the right to repair laws?

This is stuff that companies already handle with their current cancellation pipelines. Hooking up a short circuit that flags whatever user in their DB as having cancelled is something that I would absolutely toss a junior engineer at and expect them to finish in three or so working days, maybe slightly longer.

The only way it's more onerous than that is if companies have an absolutely shit design under the hood, or they're using malicious compliance to argue that this feature specifically needs eight weeks of planning poker and at least five senior engineers to sign off on each iteration of the design phase.

It sounds like they did their job fine. 23 hours on average is plenty. Most companies can do this in 2 hours, and a few of them can spend a lot longer.

Convincing. I guess I was thinking at step 1 deceleration but this actually depowers step 1 deceleration.

Ideally, we don't have all these structures slowing down societal adaptation. It's like we anneal over time, and that makes us brittle. We need to always be ready to bend to a new wind.

> You are absolute minority that conscious about your financial

Maybe but idk. I have calendar events for every single monthly expense & BNPL. Anything that isn't on-demand is in the calendar. That makes it easy to calculate future expenses and also serves as a reminder of what I'm paying for so I can cancel anything I don't think I'll need for a while. At least one subscription I've canceled and restarted a lot because I use it a bunch and then don't use it at all and then use it a bunch again and so on.

I also have a spreadsheet that I log every transaction into, because it gives me an easy way to see how my finances are doing and also gives me a way to keep track of charges that aren't properly descriptive on their own (for example, "wl *steam purchase" doesn't say which product was purchased; on the spreadsheet, I can see exactly, as well as for every other transaction, what I purchased, without having to look at each individual order). It's also faster to check than having to log into my bank, which ever since I switched to Mac has been forcing me through SMS verification every single time I log in no matter what.

Credit cards explicitly do a type of forwarding so that your old subscriptions continue to work if you get a new card. If you ever tell your bank that you've lost your card or had it stolen then they will reissue it differently without that "forward" feature, to prevent fraudulent activity. I learned this when I had fraudulent activity on my card and they accidentally did a normal reissue, and so the fraudulent activity continued even after I got the new card.

The company doesn't actually keep your card details at all (at least, all reputable companies). They take the details to the payment processor at first purchase, but they then get swapped for a token which can be used to process transactions (usable only for transactions to you by this one vendor, so tokens can't be stolen/leaked, unlike card details) and then future transactions all just use the token.

When your card details change, all issued tokens generally stay valid, they're effectively independent. A payment card is basically an initial authentication process for the account, it's not really the payment method.

Adobe is an example where a yearly discounted subscription is billed monthly

> If I tried that with my gym, they would send me to collections.

Let them. I don't know why people let services abuse them like this.

WaPo was easy when I canceled last November. The lost time I canceled a NYT subscription, it still required a phone call.

Most gyms are over subscribed - if everyone who has a membership actually went to the gym they wouldn't have enough space/equipment for everyone. They would need to raise their rates to afford more. That is those who have a membership but don't go to the gym are subsidizing those who do go to the gym.

The more expensive gyms are not this way. They will let you cancel easily. They will often out of good customer service pause your membership if you don't visit at all for a month. However they cost twice as much and often have worn out equipment that a much cheaper gym would have replaced. As such if you really visit a gym one that makes canceling is hard.

A trivial search will get you the court opinion itself <https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/07/243137P.pdf>, so regardless of how bad the news article is you should not be uninformed.

From the abstract:

    …the Commission failed to follow procedural requirements under § 22 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 57b-3(b)(1)

A more detailed explanation:

    The Commission’s formal rulemaking authority is found in § 18 of the FTC
    Act. Section 18 authorizes the Commission to adopt “rules which define with
    specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or
    affecting commerce” within the meaning of § 5, as well as “requirements prescribed
    for the purpose of preventing such acts or practices.” 15 U.S.C. § 57a(a)(1)(B)
    (emphasis added).
    
    …
    
    Besides the specificity and prevalence requirements, § 18 requires a number
    of procedural steps, some of which go beyond those required for APA notice-and-
    comment rulemaking. The FTC must first publish an “advance notice of proposed
    rulemaking” containing “a brief description of the area of inquiry under
    consideration, the objectives which the Commission seeks to achieve, and possible
    regulatory alternatives under consideration.” 15 U.S.C. § 57a(b)(2)(A). Also
    required is a notice of proposed rulemaking “stating with particularity the text of the
    rule, including any alternatives, which the Commission proposes to promulgate, and
    the reason for the proposed rule.” Id. § 57a(b)(1)(A). Interested parties must be
    afforded the opportunity for “an informal hearing” and to “to submit written data,
    views, and arguments” on the proposed rule. Id. § 57a(b)(1)(B)-(C), (c).
    
    Congress further required the Commission to conduct regulatory analyses of
    proposed and final rules, or amendments to rules, at two stages of the rulemaking
    process. First, when the Commission publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking, it
    also must issue a “preliminary regulatory analysis” containing “a description of any
    reasonable alternatives to the proposed rule which may accomplish the stated
    objective of the rule” and for the proposed rule and each alternative, “a preliminary
    analysis of the projected benefits and any adverse economic effects and any other
    effects, and of the effectiveness of the proposed rule and each alternative in meeting
    the stated objectives of the proposed rule.” 15 U.S.C. § 57b-3(b)(1)(B)-(C).
    
    Second, the Commission must issue a “final regulatory analysis” when it
    promulgates a final rule. 15 U.S.C. § 57b-3(b)(2). Similar to the preliminary
    regulatory analysis, the final regulatory analysis must include a description of
    alternatives considered by the Commission and an analysis of projected benefits and
    adverse economic and other effects. The Commission must also provide “an
    explanation of the reasons for the determination of the Commission that the final rule
    will attain its objectives” and a “summary of any significant issues raised by the
    comments submitted . . . in response to the preliminary regulatory analysis.” Id.
    § 57b-3(b)(2)(B)-(E). Importantly, the preliminary and final regulatory analysis
    requirements do not apply to “any amendment to a rule” unless the FTC estimates that
    the amendment “will have an annual effect on the national economy of $100,000,000
    or more.” Id. § 57b-3(a)(1)(A).

Notice all of the steps. “advance notice of proposed rulemaking”, “notice of proposed rulemaking”, “preliminary regulatory analysis”, “an informal hearing” plus the ability of concerned parties “to submit written data, views, and arguments” to the FTC, and a “final regulatory analysis”. The court draws our attention to the fact that the FTC never did either of the regulatory analysis steps, and points out that they are required.

The FTC had opted out of doing those analyses on the basis that the new rule would have an annual impact of less than a hundred million dollars. The court however notes that this is quite unlikely:

    Based on the FTC’s estimate that 106,000 entities currently offer
    negative option features and estimated average hourly rates for professionals such as
    lawyers, website developers, and data scientists whose services would be required by
    many businesses to comply with the new requirements, the ALJ observed that unless
    each business used fewer than twenty-three hours of professional services at the
    lowest end of the spectrum of estimated hourly rates, the Rule’s compliance costs
    would exceed $100 million. Such an estimate was “clearly unrealistically low
    inasmuch as there are several new requirements proposed that would require changes
    in existing practices and/or disclosure forms.”

Thus the FTC erred when it skipped these steps. The remedy is to vacate:

    Section 18 of the FTC Act directs that a reviewing court “shall
    hold unlawful and set aside the rule” if it finds agency action to be “without
    observance of procedure required by law.” 15 U.S.C. § 57a(e)(3); 5 U.S.C.
    § 706(2)(D). “The ordinary practice is to vacate unlawful agency action.” United
    Steel v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 925 F.3d 1279, 1287 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

This doesn’t mean that the rule is unconstitutional, just that the FTC has to actually do things correctly. The court hasn’t ruled on the law itself because it is moot.

You have 2 trump appointees and George hw bush appointee.

Were you expecting respectable and proper jurisprudence? I'm not any more.