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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
The problem with subscription services is that it’s fairly easy to argue it’s interstate commerce that states don’t have jurisdiction over.
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.
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.
That would also invalidate all of the porn site ID laws.
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
I’d expect the Spanish inquisition long before I expect the government to do something good for the people.
We literally cannot have even one nice thing in this country. You best start believin’ in cyberpunk dystopias… because you’re in one.
I expected nothing yet I’m still disappointed…
Most likely I’ll have to snail mail an unsubscribe to subscription with a check won’t I?
I wonder if replying to a “do not reply” email 1000 times a second would have any ill effect in their servers.
Best you can do is report spam. If enough do that, it’ll give their IT dep a headache.
Likely not. Many times the address doesn’t even have a mailbox, so it immediately bounces. If you reply enough to actually have an effect, you’ll either be blacklisted, or reported as spam.
Especially with all the talk of Transhumanism getting more common
Deep cut
what a shocker trump fucking over everyone again
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.
The current ftc doing something constructive?
Most likely situation is that this will not happen now, or years from now
industry associations and individual businesses […] argued the FTC had failed to follow correct procedures and conduct an analysis before issuing the rule. The judge panel has agreed with them.
Three judges — two appointed by President Trump, one by President George H. W. Bush — found that the FTC’s rulemaking process was flawed and did not include early analysis of the rule’s possible economic effects. [1]
“the law”
“the grift”
This was their last chance to do anything before they’re gutted. Guess we deal with the wave of bullshit now.
So per the latest Supreme Court ruling, this only applies to that explicit case then, right?.. Right?
Doesn’t that ONLY apply to whatever circuit it’s in?
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.
They doing any of this analysis on anything the current administration is up to?
