- 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.
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 🤣
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.
Meh, report the card stolen then cancel.
I only subscribe to 2 services, my VPN provider and a usenet provider. Everything else turns out to be free.
I keep wanting to sub to a usenet provider, but never have the time to try and figure out which one and such.
No indexer?
Prowlarr handles indexing, I’ve had pretty good luck with free indexers.
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 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.
That’s like telling cops they must follow the rule of law before they can enforce it. There would be 0 cops doing anything.
No, that’s like telling the city government they can’t have cops arrest people for a law that hasn’t passed council.
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.
They just have to follow the correct procedures
Funny how courts only apply this requirement to agencies when run under Democrats. Meanwhile, RFK is ignoring all basic procedures to stop vaccines, etc…
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 “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.
Gotta love some hard hitting coverage by Engadget, followed immediately by “Best Amazon Prime Day 2025 deals.”
And the “sale” prices are just what they normally were 6 months ago.
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.
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.”
Corruption in the USA? Perish the thought. /S
Removed by mod
