all 31 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 232 points 1 year ago (7 children)

We literally cannot have even one nice thing in this country. You best start believin' in cyberpunk dystopias... because you're in one.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Most likely I’ll have to snail mail an unsubscribe to subscription with a check won’t I?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I wonder if replying to a "do not reply" email 1000 times a second would have any ill effect in their servers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • what a shocker trump fucking over everyone again

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    This is the FTC's rule, but nothing prevents each and every state from implementing a law to do the exact same thing, except slightly differently than every other state, making it extremely costly for the companies to implement.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The problem with subscription services is that it's fairly easy to argue it's interstate commerce that states don't have jurisdiction over.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    States have argued successfully to tax cross state commerce. That's why you get charged local sales tax even when ordering from a company that does not have a presence in your state. I don't see this as any different, but someone will need to go first to set the precedent.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    California has the law and visa is based in california. We can push them to make it so that if any site accepts visa they have to follow california's lawn click to cancel. It'll be a nice change from them trying to ban the anime, and do something useful.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I was really hoping this would go into effect so I could sign up for a gym membership. I'll never sign up with a gym again...Their cancellation processes are offensive and predatory.

    The "click-to-cancel" rule would force gyms to allow you to cancel your gym membership as easily as you signed up for it.

    For some reason these businesses are against losing the free money they get for making it hard to cancel subscriptions.

    It's been a law in Germany for three years now:

    German Online Cancel Button Law

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    For those who worry about this and other services like this, privacy.com is the solution.

    You basically create virtual credit cards with an amount limit. At any point you can cancel the credit card and not worry about all the hoops you need to cancel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    This is great advice for signing up for streaming services, and very, very bad advice for a gym membership.

    They absolutely will send your delinquent gym membership account to collections and it will wind up on your credit report. It's part of their business plan.

    You'd have to sign up with a false identity, which is technically fraud.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, this is the way to go these days. My bank offers this feature in app, and I have a separate virtual credit card for each service. All I need to do to cancel a service/subscription is to cancel that credit card. Good luck trying to get more money from me. This is especially useful for those "free trials", sign up with a credit card that deletes itself after 24h, and bye bye.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    Just for that I'm going to put things in my Amazon and eBay accounts and just keep swapping stuff without buying anything for weeks at a time.

  • source
  • They doing any of this analysis on anything the current administration is up to?

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    So per the latest Supreme Court ruling, this only applies to that explicit case then, right?.... Right?

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Well it's good to know that the courts are willing to tell the executive they can't do things. Shame about it only applying when the feds are helping ordinary people

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    I'd expect the Spanish inquisition long before I expect the government to do something good for the people.

  • source
  • [–] 63 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    the FTC had failed to follow correct procedures and conduct an analysis before issuing the rule

    The FTC is free to issue this again. They need to do it in accordance with the law next time.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Doesn't that ONLY apply to whatever circuit it's in?

  • source
  • Every single opportunity, however petty, to ensure we become more miserable evwry day.

  • source
  • 30 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 62 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    That's almost literally the opposite of what the judges 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Gotta love some hard hitting coverage by Engadget, followed immediately by "Best Amazon Prime Day 2025 deals."

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Thank fuck I moved every account I could to one of my credit cards. Won't cancel?

    That's fine, broski. I can cancel it from my end lmao 🤣

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Except you can't anymore! I just cancelled my American Express and the lady warned me that any pre-existing subscriptions can still be charged to my account... she said I actually have to call the subscription companies to cancel, or they just keep charging and approving the charges I guess? Then I just get a bill from amex I suppose. Seems totally messed up, but they are more interested in protecting business than people. She said they have businesses have lots of protections now.

    It's not a huge deal to me as I don't have any subscriptions on that card, but I was taken aback by how aggressive the laws protected business.

    I mean chill, my wow subscription isn't legally binding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Corruption in the USA? Perish the thought. /S

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    By "people like you" I mean people that see this as a good thing. They're picking and choosing what laws this applies to and what they let slide. This is just the "easy out" that prevents "people like you" from being outraged at the blatant corruption going on.

    It wasn't meant to be insulting.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I only subscribe to 2 services, my VPN provider and a usenet provider. Everything else turns out to be free.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)