US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

Why the rule was struck down (process vs substance)

• Multiple commenters stress the court did not reject “click to cancel” itself, but the FTC’s rulemaking process.
• Statute requires a preliminary regulatory impact analysis when a rule’s annual economic effect is ≥$100M.
• FTC initially estimated impact below that threshold, but its own administrative judge later found compliance costs clearly above it (e.g., >$100M unless each affected business spent <~23 hours of professional work).
• The 8th Circuit held that once that finding existed, the FTC was legally required to do the extra analysis and comment period, and skipping it would set a precedent for agencies to lowball estimates to avoid scrutiny.

Debate over FTC conduct and partisan motives

• One camp: this is a straightforward “rule of law” case; agencies must follow procedures even for popular, pro‑consumer rules.
• Another camp: the $100M bar and how it was applied is seen as a weaponized technicality serving corporate interests. Some suggest the incoming FTC leadership or the court effectively “spiked” the rule.
• There’s disagreement over whether conservative commissioners and judges genuinely support the rule but want it “done right,” or are merely saying so while ensuring it dies.

Cost, complexity, and the $100M threshold

• Some argue it’s absurd to claim adding a cancel button costs that much; others detail real complexity in large orgs: UX work, back-end changes, billing/CRM integrations, legal review, testing, and legacy systems.
• Others note the threshold is old, not inflation‑adjusted, and spread over ~100k+ businesses it implies only ~$1k per firm—plausibly low.
• Debate on what “economic effect” means: pure compliance cost vs lost subscription revenue vs broader economy.

Consumer harm and dark patterns

• Widespread frustration with gyms, media, cable/ISPs, online courses, and newspapers that allow easy signup but require phone calls, chats, or maze-like flows to cancel.
• Many anecdotes of deceptive “pause not cancel,” annual billing surprises after trials, and repeated unauthorized charges that continued across new cards.
• Several describe chargebacks and collections threats when they unilaterally cut off payment.

Workarounds: banks, virtual cards, app stores

• Strong praise for Apple and Google in‑store subscriptions: one‑place, one‑tap cancellation and easy refunds. Some are willing to pay the platform premium for this.
• Heavy discussion of virtual cards (privacy.com, card-issuer tools, Revolut, etc.) as de‑facto “kill switches,” but others warn:
  • Merchants can sometimes force-settle charges.
  • Unpaid amounts may go to collections and harm credit.
• Many wish banks provided a universal “list and cancel all recurring payments” feature; some countries already do via bank or card regulation.

Comparisons with EU and other regions

• Multiple commenters say EU consumer protections are far stronger:
  • Easier cancellation, mandated parity between signup and cancellation effort.
  • 14‑day no‑questions‑asked return rights.
  • Some banks let customers revoke recurring payment mandates centrally.
• Others push back that EU practice isn’t uniformly rosy (e.g., telecom and gyms still fight cancellation) and DPAs can be business‑friendly, citing Ireland.
• Australia and India are cited as examples where banks must expose and allow cancellation of recurring debits.

Courts, regulation, and power

• Strong thread of cynicism: US is described as structurally pro‑corporate, with “economic friction for shareholders” treated as the worst sin.
• Others caution against eroding due process even for “good” rules, arguing that shortcuts now will backfire when a future agency uses them for harmful regulations.
• Some see this as a symptom of congressional paralysis: agencies stretch old statutes to fill policy gaps, then get slapped down by increasingly skeptical, conservative courts.