They refused to refund me and after I thought I'd cancelled and I had to run a charge back from my bank.
This is nefarious behaviour on their part and consumers need to be protected from it.
> But an administrative law judge later found that the rule's impact surpassed the threshold, observing that compliance costs would exceed $100 million "unless each business used fewer than twenty-three hours of professional services at the lowest end of the spectrum of estimated hourly rates," the 8th Circuit ruling said. Despite the administrative law judge's finding, the FTC did not conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis and instead "proceeded to issue only the final regulatory analysis alongside the final Rule," the judges' panel said.
It says it in the article
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.
but also, not the kind of subscription the article is about.
It allows you to make virtual cards that are single use.
So if a merchant keeps trying to charge you, it will automatically decline.
Until the powers that be gets its act together and stops allowing businesses to run all over us...this is the way.
I learned this the hard way with the New York Times doing this, but merchants can “force settle” a transaction if they want and it’ll override the decline they get. This is a violation of the merchant agreement but companies do it anyway (like NYT did to me). Privacy isn’t as bullet-proof as you would think.
Honestly this seems like a pretty obvious core banking feature nowadays, I'm surprised it's not more widespread (even in the US - reliable cancellation features across all recurring card payments would surely make people more comfortable with subscriptions). Under the hood all banks (AFAIK) are handle recurring payments by issuing an authorization token at first purchase, and validating it on later transactions. Allowing customers to see the list of active tokens that were recently used and then revoke them explicitly seems like a no brainer.
> But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said the FTC erred in its rulemaking process by failing to produce a preliminary regulatory analysis, a statutory requirement for rules whose annual effect on the national economy would exceed $100 million.
> The FTC had argued that it was not required to prepare the preliminary analysis because its initial estimate of the rule’s impact on the national economy was under the $100 million threshold — even though ultimately the presiding officer determined the impact exceeded the threshold.
This is a case where congress really did pass a concrete law, and the court is requiring the FTC to follow it. Sucks that a reasonable rule is getting voided for the sloppiness but I really don't think the courts are indefensibly out of line.
[1] https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5390731-appeals-court-...
I understand the idea behind the threshold for changing rules but this still feels very broken. There is a constant struggle of having to do everything perfectly to make any positive progress, but bad actors can operate however they like with seemingly little repercussions.
And on international scale, because more competitive companies presumably out-compete foreign competitors.
So, FTC needs some permission and review to make national economy money?
Also, didn’t she „build“ the right to repair laws?
How much time do you think an intern would need to render a button on screen that says "cancel" in red mapped to an already implemented function in the code base. Especially with trillions poured into the AI?
This is non sense and horse shit, and these bench full of idiots know it
The cost of allowing people to cancel subscriptions is more than the cost to implement a button.
Fortunately, California law should be unaffected by this and that will probably be sufficient.
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.
If there is a card that offers this let me know because I'll be switching immediately.
that's happen more often than you think
also financial illiterate is real
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.
What is necessary is regulatory (or statutory) enforcement of easy, online notice of cancellation, without a company able to frustrate you giving them (and them recording and acknowledging) that notice.
Not all services offer this yet, but it's gaining momentum, especially with Amazon now offering it for non-subscriptions.
So I contested the charge through the bank. They would refund me, but then the company would charge me again for the subscription
This went on for several months. At some point the card expired, the bank automatically sent me a new card, and somehow the company was still able to charge the subscription to my new card, even though I couldn’t even access my account
It was a couple of years ago, and I don’t remember how I finally stopped it. But it was kinda shocking to me to see the charges “jump” through different cards. Especially given that usually any service that I don’t want cancelled, gets immediately cancelled if my card on file expires
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.
I recently had to cut down on expenses starting with extraneous subscriptions and charitable donations, of which I had dozens. Many ad a click-to-cancel or at least fill-out-a-form-to-cancel process, but some of them said 'call us'. Then I discovered that I could cut them all off from my side!
I got a few 'hey your donation stopped' messages, and answered the first ones, but they all eventually went away.
You may still be responsible for the payment, and may need to pay collection fees as well at that point.
The protection specifically requires that cancelling is at least as easy as signing up.
However, many years ago, after an hour on hold failing to cancel Virgin ADSL I just cancelled the direct debit instead. They put a debt recovery firm on me! The direct debit was charged at the start of each billing period so it wasn't a non payment thing. I recall there used to be more indefensible "notice periods" for cancellation which were just pure scummy ways to force feed unwanted services but I don't think this had one.
(Not affiliated, just a satisfied customer.)
This is _not_ the same as using the Apple credit card for a subscription.
I used to religiously use things like ynab, but now I need to find ways to export my amazon transactions, google play, etc. It's nearly impossible, and it makes me feel completely out of control.
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.
After its own ALJ found the rule’s effect would exceed $100 million annually, the FTC was obligated to publish an analysis of the “projected benefits and any adverse economic effects and any other effects” and the effectiveness of alternatives, as required by § 57b-3(b)(1)(C).
It makes me much more willing to trial a subscription service because I know I won't have to spend an hour of my life on the phone with a lovely Filipino man to stop that service.
The killer app for me on iPhone? Files. I literally switched from iPhone 3 to android because it didn’t have a file manager! Thankfully I came back.
It is one reason that with this switch allowing apps to send me outside of Apple's Ecosystem to subscribe, I hope that developers realize that if they make this the only option there are likely many people like myself that just won't subscribe to your app. I am far more likely to try a subscription that costs a couple dollars a month if it is through the app store instead of through some random website.
Corporate Republicans hate red tape and regulation for business but love it for starngling government and the poor (they just added huge onoreous red tape to medicaid and food stamp recipients because they absolutely hate their fellow americans).
If your product is so poor that the only way you can retain customers is to make it too hard for them to cancel then your product needs to be improved.
I will buy my next season pass when I have a history of entry transactions that proves I could have saved by buying one...
Almost like they can do it without the phone or something.
Subscribing to a services isn't a vow of "until death do us part" and I don't want businesses trying to act like it is or make it so.
It's hard because businesses don't want cancellation to be easy, as they lose money. A lot of people forget to cancel or just can't be bothered for a long time, especially if cancellation is hard.
And yes, it's as predatory as it sounds.
It's basically the financialization of business, as some point one of the few ways towards "growth" is nickel-and-diming everyone you can.
The game is rigged and enough deluded people think they can "game" it as well.
There will always be the suspicion of political bias, and the haphazard way the administrations ever since Obama went in how nominations were done adds more fuel to the fire.
Seems like an almost intentional mistake tbh
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)
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).
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.”
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).Gotta laugh at the threshold being USD100M costs to the affected businesses without the law taking into account how much the annual costs to consumers are, assuming the continuation of the practices.
No they aren't. The ease with which you can continue to charge consumers without providing value to them directly affects the total amount of those charges (also, profits is a variable)
Those costs are definitely going to be passed along to the consumer in some form or another. Fewer sales, fewer discounts, higher subscription prices, higher advertising prices, thinner magazines, it doesn’t matter. It all flows down to the consumers in the end. I don’t see how you can argue that these costs _can’t_ be passed down to the consumers.
And it’s definitely going to cost more than $1,000. The FTC estimates that there are over a hundred thousands entities offering subscriptions of some kind to customers in the US. 100,000 × $1,000 = $100,000,000. That’s the threshold beyond which rules changes need additional review.
Because you've ignored the profits factor and have supposed away the other factor I mentioned as part of your hypothetical
I'm happy to consult on this with all those poor businesses for under $100,000,000 in order to help the court vibes feel like the cost isn't over the limit.
I feel confident I can affordably write a few whitepapers and design guidelines to help these poor folks out as they research if there should be a cancel button and if it should work.
But if you don’t like the rule, talk to your local Congresscritter and ask them to propose a bill to amend or remove it. Complaining about it in snarky internet comments isn’t going to get you anywhere.
In what fantasy land is the following any different?
> talk to your local Congresscritter and ask them to propose a bill to amend or remove it
Most European countries, have their own version of consumer protection agencies, usually any kind of complaint gets sorted out, even if takes a couple months.
If they fail for whatever reason, there is still the top European one.
Most of the time I read about FTC, it appears to side with the wrong guys.