Cable Companies Ask 5th Circuit To Block FTC's Click-to-Cancel Rule (arstechnica.com) 55
Cable companies, advertising firms, and newspapers are asking courts to block a federal "click-to-cancel" rule that would force businesses to make it easier for consumers to cancel services. From a report: Lawsuits were filed yesterday, about a week after the Federal Trade Commission approved a rule that "requires sellers to provide consumers with simple cancellation mechanisms to immediately halt all recurring charges."
Cable lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association and the Interactive Advertising Bureau trade group sued the FTC in the conservative US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The lawsuit claims the 5th Circuit is a proper venue because a third plaintiff, the Electronic Security Association, has its principal offices in Dallas. That group represents security companies such as ADT.
Cable lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association and the Interactive Advertising Bureau trade group sued the FTC in the conservative US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The lawsuit claims the 5th Circuit is a proper venue because a third plaintiff, the Electronic Security Association, has its principal offices in Dallas. That group represents security companies such as ADT.
A big slap over their faces (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A big slap over their faces (Score:5, Funny)
I have some other ideas:
Dissolved and sold for parts.
Nationalized and run as a public utility.
Execute the current CEO every time they ask for the public to be screwed for their benefit
Honestly, you're much more generous than I am.
Re: (Score:2)
Your first idea is more appealing if applied directly to the executives rather than the corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth in pricing sheet needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Phone, cable, apartment rental, memberships, subscriptions and recurring charges need a federally required 1 sheet truth in pricing on the front of their contract.
Lists all costs in basic language
Lists any initiation fees, application fees, credit check fees, etc. to start the service
Lists any installation fees
Lists any equipment fees, equipment rental fees
Lists optional add on products with default to NO
Lists total price before taxes
Lists taxes - State, federal, city, county, for the person being offered the contract adjusted for zip code/city/county
Lists total price including taxes
Lists start date, end date, how often it will be due
Lists cancellation process and any termination fees
The companies already have this information since they produce the contracts, set prices for each part of the contract and ultimately report the revenue to the government for income tax and if publicly listed stock market reporting
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But of course... (Score:2)
they went to the courts to whine about the injustice of their evil schemes being attacked.. and I wouldn't be surprised if the courts agree, seeing as "corporations are people" and therefore this is a "1st amendment" case.
Re: (Score:2)
Heaven forfend! (Score:5, Interesting)
Do something customer-friendly?
No no no, let's spend a few million dollars to fight the rule instead.
That's some high-powered top management decision-making right there.
Re: (Score:2)
That's some high-powered top management decision-making right there.
That's why they get paid the big bucks.
Any company that signs up for this ... (Score:1)
You mean every company. (Score:1)
Should be found guilty of conspiracy to theft, with this as the main evidence.
Before we assume this should somehow be limited to companies that sign up for this, we should probably actually read those EULAs we blindly accept every time.
We might find you mean every damn company.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, yes, EULAs are great.
Especially the part where they acknowledge that whatever their terms may say, they ARE superseded by whatever local, federal, etc. laws may dictate. Because sometimes those get written when bullshit has become too universal. Like if every damn company is up to the same gimmick.
And this is why (Score:3)
And this is why I subscribe to nothing. Fuck these ass-hat companies for the bullshit they pull. You want my business then treat me correctly.
How dare we? (Score:5, Funny)
They have a right to make it easy to screw you and difficult for you to do anything about it! If you don't like it, you can do business with some theoretical other company that doesn't have the same policy. And the fact that such a company is not available to you is YOUR problem.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
ADT is the worst (Score:5, Informative)
A friend fell into ADT's trap. She was losing her house so we called to cancel her burger alarm service, and they said she could only cancel during the 30-day window before the contract renewed yearly, and her only option was to move the service to a new house. We explained that there wasn't a new house because she was going to be homeless and literally living on the street, and they didn't care. Pay up or go to collections, and don't forget to cancel next year.
Fuck ADT so much. They absolutely need this rule.
Re:ADT is the worst (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:ADT is the worst (Score:4, Informative)
Re:ADT is the worst (Score:5, Informative)
She stopped payments, they sent it to collections. I assume it hurt her credit score (not that it mattered at this point), but they never got another dime.
Here I am complaining. :) ADT is a terrible, shameful company. Never do business with them.
Re: (Score:1)
Going to the court doesn't resolve your shithouse credit rating. As soon as a collection agency is called consider your future finances fucked. If you want to buy a house, expect it to cost you a LOT in shitty interest terms.
Just to play Devil's advocate (Score:3)
Cable companies usually do give promotional rates to "new" customers (cancel, wait a month, then sign up again), and if it's too easy to game the system they may make it a bit harder to qualify for those rates. It's possible this ends up being a case of be careful what you wish for.
Plus, I think the reason they offer promotional rates at all is because the majority of their customers don't game the system by cancelling and re-subscribing. If that process becomes as easy as clicking a button and starts hurting the good ol' corporate bottom line - yeah, you know where this is going...
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a solution make signing up harder, force people to give proof of identity and then if they have been a customer in some period then don't give them a discount.
And as a bonus you can make leaving a bit harder under these rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did this with my cellphone carrier. I'm with visible. I saw an ad for $5 less then I was paying, so I jumped on the website chat and asked for the newer lower rate. They were cool and just did it.
Re: (Score:2)
You shouldn't have to do this...
If the price is now X-5 for the same service then you should have been automatically moved to the new pricing.
If the prices went up you can be sure they'd be charging you the higher amount right away.
Keeping you on the higher price until you make the effort to complain is just abuse.
Re:Just to play Devil's advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Just to play Devil's advocate (Score:1)
One can only hope (Score:1)
Every day I get a little bit closer to wishing the Purge would happen for real...
Re: (Score:3)
Every day I get a little bit closer to wishing the Purge would happen for real...
Didn't the rich folks basically lock themselves up in their heavily-fortified compounds while the lesser folks murdered each other? I think The Purge is really just an analogy for the idea that you can't have another French Revolution if the commoners are too busy killing each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The movie was an analogy. I just want these people to be able to be targets with zero (normal) repercussions. Either they die and I'm a little happier or it stops affecting me completely.
I don't think this can survive (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The Loper ruling. The way that works if it's not explicitly written into the law the government can't do it.
What's written into the law is that All Unfair business practices are Illegal, and the FTC is tasked with determining which business practices are unfair and publishing regulations to that effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If this goes to the Supreme Court, do you think they'll give a fuck about any of that legal bullshit?
Yes, because the Supreme Court's primary job is legal bullshit. You can never say for sure what the court will do, But the Supreme Court is not obligated to accept any case for review, and they are not prone to accept a case that would be damaging to the dignity of the court.
This is a case where the FTC is not reliant on principals made up by the court such as Chevron deference -- because in this case
Ah, the bestest circuit (Score:2)
5th Circuit beacuse ... Implying (Score:5, Informative)
The lawsuit claims the 5th Circuit is a proper venue because a third plaintiff, the Electronic Security Association, has its principal offices in Dallas.
Implying the other plaintiffs aren't in that jurisdiction and they are judge/court shopping because they think the 5th Circuit will be more sympathetic than other courts, as the 5th Circuit is known to be super conservative / right-wing friendly often ruling against the FCC, FTC, FDA, etc... (And then often overturned by SCOTUS.)
Why the Fifth Circuit Keeps Making Such Outlandish Decisions [theatlantic.com]
Google 5th circuit political leanings [google.com]
Reasoning? (Score:3)
Companies ... to block a federal "click-to-cancel" rule that would force businesses to make it easier for consumers to cancel services.
And the companies are harmed by this rule because ...?
Re: (Score:2)
And the companies are harmed by this rule because ...?
Because then their customers might cancel, then realize there's actually no competitor to switch to, and will complain to the government about that next.
Re: (Score:2)
They rely on receiving money for extra months from customers who wanted to cancel service By impeding and delaying them from cancelling service.
Re: (Score:3)
And the companies are harmed by this rule because ...?
Because it gives power to the consumers, and obviously we can't have that!
Delay tactic (Score:2)
They know they're eventually going to lose but their suing because when the lawsuit is being dealt with they wouldn't have to comply, they'd still use the old cancellation-avoidance tactics. A lawsuit buys them a few years of extra income from subscriptions.
Plaintiff list (Score:3, Informative)
Judge shopping in action (Score:5, Insightful)
The Fifth Circuit is notorious for being the court used to overturn people's rights or give a pass to business actions. Where do you think the removal of woman's right to bodily autonomy came from? The Fifth Circuit is so well known to be anti-freedom, lawyers judge shop by filing cases in the Circuit. The Supreme Court has fairly regularly overturned decisions from the Circuit because they bore no relation to any legal precedent or even rule of law. In fact, the Supreme Court has a case before it which is testing the limits of judge shopping [npr.org].
The latest dispute that the Supreme Court has now agreed to hear involves a challenge to regulations issued by the EPA under the Clean Air Act. But the question is not the merits of those regulations. Rather, it is whether those challenging the regulations, in this case conservative groups, can essentially bring their regulatory challenges in the appeals courts of their choice, most often, of late, in the Fifth Circuit.
The Biden administration contends that federal law mandates that such “national questions” be litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is supposed to deal with regulatory issues that are "nationally applicable."
In a similar case, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the administration and transferred the case to the D.C. Circuit. That set up a conflict that the Supreme Court will now hear later this term. And it affords the court another opportunity, perhaps, to send a message to the Fifth Circuit.
Re: (Score:1)
That message will be "we have your back as you do god's work".
5th Circuit will have trouble (Score:2)
In what way, does refusing to do what you offered to do (cancel), appear honest?
You mean, "bullying". What happened to The customer is always right"? Yes, inform customers of consequences, then confirm their choice.
Even the 5th Circuit will have trouble declaring click-to-cancel doesn't promote fairness or honesty. At best, they can nit-pick the rule for not being specific.
Let the inverse be true (Score:2)
If these co pansies do not want cancelling to be as easy as signing up, then let’s not have the rule. Instead, let’s have a rule that signing up should be as difficult as cancelling. Any company with difficult cancellations that is too easy to sign up to should be heavily penalized.
Yeah. I think that’ll do it.
Think of the children! (Score:2)
Arbitration (Score:2)
Sorry, you can't block this rule in court. When you incorporated your business, you agreed to the terms and conditions of the federal governement.
We recently updated those terms and conditions to include binding arbitration and blocking class action.
I understand you're upset, but this is standard practice. Now, would you like to schedule a meeting with our lawyers and paid arbitrator today?
*Also: everything you do anywhere that's recorded some way can be used to train our AI. Thanks for your content!