With the recent federal block of click to cancel, states implementing this will be the way to go.
> Both bills passed the House with broad bipartisan support. If the legislation is agreed to by the state Senate and signed by Gov Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania would join several other states that have moved to create such laws over the past year since the FTC began working on its now-defunct rule.
> New York, California, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Virginia have all enacted state-level policies that include provisions similar to Ciresi and Borowski’s bills.
If you live in a state that has not passed such legislation, I would encourage you to hound your reps until they do. 45 states to go.
Just to be clear the block was due to a procedural issue and I wouldn’t at all be surprised to see this sorta thing have bipartisan support at the federal level, seeing as it enjoys bipartisan support at the state level in every jurisdiction it is attempted. The main hurdle at the federal level would be getting it out of committee.
To add some color to the regulatory issue as I understand it, the court ruled that the impact of this rule would be over $100M so they’re required to assess cost/benefits of alternatives and submit them during the public comment period.
I don’t even know what the alternative would be apart from doing nothing. Making it more of a pain for consumers to cancel is zero sum on first order analysis (if I lose a dollar because I can’t cancel the company gets a dollar) but at a second order makes our economy less dynamic by entrenching incumbent companies and making it harder for consumers to allocate their money towards better alternatives.
If a company can trap your money in a labyrinth of process they don’t have to compete on quality or price. Simple as that.
I’m always amazed how willing the courts are to block actions like this on vague technicalities but are then so deferent to police violations of civil liberties where even a violation can still upholds the original judgement against that person and only applies going forward.
This is not a vague technicality, though? The FTC has to obey the law, and the law says that if they make a new rule that has more than $100M of direct monetary impact, they have to use a more involved process. They originally tried to waive this by saying that the rule doesn't have more than $100M impact, but that's just clearly false.
It's not a good thing to cheer rules being broken when you like the reason.
You never hear about the millions of perfectly reasonable rulings every year.
The stuff based on vague technicalities that result in something you agree with isn’t memorable, so it’s the vague technicalities you disagree with that’s memorable.
The process is broken. If there was an issue with no alternatives being specified, the right time to bring that up was during the public comment period when there weren’t any alternatives. Not after, imo.
I get that process needs to be followed but this is allowing unnecessary gamesmanship.
It was brought up, by the FTC members who voted against it, precisely because it didn’t follow the process. But the democrats had the majority so it passed anyway. And then was immediately sued for failing to follow the process.
When you look at what is happening in Washington, it is disingenuous to say something was blocked because of a procedural issue. It was blocked because the party that controls all three branches of the Federal government didn't want it to pass.
No, it was exactly blocked because of a procedural issue. Despite the fears of many, Trump is not yet a dictator, and the Republican Party is not in total control. Judges rule in ways that they don't like all the time.
This keeps coming up because Trump tries to act like a dictator and just order things to be the way he wants, and it doesn't work that way. There are procedures that the Federal government has to follow; it can't just ignore them and get things done right now. And in fact, the government being forced to follow procedure is a very good thing, even if it's something we want the government to do. It's one of the things standing between where we are and a dictatorship.
I'm afraid I don't really buy that. The court didn't have to seek out this procedural issue. The rules are complex enough to justify any decision you wish. They simply decided by fiat that this case was worth more than $100 million, and overruled the subject matter experts.
It appears that they make their decision, and then justify it. That may not actually be the case -- but if it isn't, the outcome is indistinguishable.
It's true that they're not always favoring the President. But he is increasingly concentrating his power, and it favors him more and more.
The Party sought it out to put before its activist court. At least one recent Supreme Court ruling (gay wedding website) was issued instead of having the case tossed out for lack of standing. If it had been a discrimination case that went the other way, you can bet your ass they would have done the homework to find there's no "there" there.
> But as the case advanced, [the request in dispute] was referenced by her attorneys when lawyers for the state of Colorado pressed Smith on whether she had sufficient grounds to sue.
> "I was incredibly surprised given the fact that I've been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years," said Stewart, who declined to give his last name for fear of harassment and threats.
> Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on Friday called the lawsuit a "made up case" because Smith wasn't offering wedding website services when the suit was filed.
More than that, it was a good ruling. Judges not rubberstamping non/lowball estimates rather than the mandating max costing, is toward the public good.
I confess to a lot of schadenfreude at the powers that be, like the US Chamber of Commerce, who fight against these federal bills and then find themselves fighting 50 slightly incompatible laws. Oh, you thought it was going to be hard to comply with that one, single pro-consumer regulation? Have fun!
See also: a patchwork of privacy laws[0] that are vastly harder to comply with than a national level GDPR-style law would be.
I live here. We actually have fairly decent consumer protections... at least against product misrepresenation.
For example, our state constitution prohibits products being sold in containers which misrepresent the amount of their contents (albeit, it still happens).
Conversely, we also founded the pay-day-loan industry, which is just disgraceful (about a dozen states have banned entirely). Only passed because Allan Jones ("father of payday loans") donated $30,000 to PACs in the mid-90s.
I'm currently looking for greener pastures, up-to-and-including expatriation. This state overall has politicians' heads so far up their own...
State's rights doesn't give power to the people. It gives power to mostly gerrymandered state legislatures and to appointed judges.
Click to cancel is popular among the people. It was blocked despite this. If the people had power (as opposed to lobbyists, or big business), this would had passed federally.
> State's rights is just about always the best way to go
Generally agreed. I live in Canada and think we would be much better off if we pushed more legislation away from the feds and to the provinces. The needs/wants of Alberta/Saskatchewan is much different than Quebec for example.
Gun control is a major divisive issue in Canada as gun control is 100% at the federal level, but the preferences of how it is handles varies hugely between provinces, so much so that some provinces are threatening to not enforce the federal laws.
Im fine with the feds managing border enforcement, immigration, and military — and collecting taxes to fund those programs — but other than that they should leave to the provinces.
The other alternative is that everyone is subject to the mob rule of the major population centers which have much different needs/wants then those outside of the centers. Why not just give the population centers what they want and those in rural areas what they want?
Gun control is harder to do like that because guns are physical objects and it's trivial to bring them across unmanned borders. Something like subscriptions are much easier to deal with because that can just be based on billing address.
It seems to work fine in the USA? Lots of guns illegal in California are legal elsewhere? There are also lots of municipalities that ban guns like NYC.
Also consider that huge amounts of illegal guns cross the Canadian federal border, despite there being border control.
Same thing with bear spray, illegal to carry in most cases but anyone over the age of 18 can get it because it has real legitimate uses.
> It seems to work fine in the USA? Lots of guns illegal in California are legal elsewhere? There are also lots of municipalities that ban guns like NYC
It works as well as having a peeing section in the pool
I see it that California has a pool where you aren’t allowed to pee in and Texas has a pool you are allowed to pee in. People are free to use whatever pool they want as long as they follow the rules of the pool?
Not really, there are lots of examples where you are not allowed to possess certain objects in certain places, I believe that guns are just a hot topic that results in knee jerk reactions. A simple example is I cannot ride an atv in certain forested areas during wildfire season, do we ban all atvs because someone may bring an atv in a place they are not allowed? No, we punish those who bring the atv where they are not allowed.
If you want to continue the pool analogy, many pools don’t let you bring in pool noodles and other floating objects into the lap swimming lane. That doesn’t mean you ban pool noodles, it means you kick people out who don’t follow the rules.
If someone possesses an object they are not allowed to have in a certain place they should be punished, the real problem is that Canada has a deteriorated rule of law where those who breaks the laws of the country are not stopped.
giving provinces too much power has generally been a problem for Canada, and a major goal of the current government is to bring more unity across provinces in terms of regulations, so that canadian markets are bigger than one province.
each province still has cities, so you arent getting away having cities dominate. instead, i think cities should be provinces to themselves, same as seattle and portland should both be states in the US. the rural albertans can take care of themselves without taxing calgary and edmonton.
Rural albertans have much more in common with people in Edmonton and Calgary than they do with rural Quebec.
I agree that the current trend in government is that feds are getting more power in Canada, but I dont think it is a good thing as now the entire country has to live under the rule of like 3 cities.
That’s good and all for things that begin and end within a single state. Some things really should be done at the federal level. I don’t think a single service I subscribe to is based in the state in which I live.
> The question: will companies segregate their customers? Everyone gets to click-to-cancel or is there now a dedicated code path just for the lucky few?
The answer to that is that companies will use geofencing to restrict click-to-cancel to only the states that pass such laws. We've already seen this happen on a national level, when Apple segregated the EU and the rest of the world on the topic of sideloading
> It's absurd that such laws would need to be passed 50 times for all US citizens to benefit from it. It should be done at the federal level.
You're missing an important reason why regulating at the state level first is a good idea: because it allows you to test the implementation with a small fraction of citizens before rolling it out.
Yes, basically everyone wants click-to-cancel, but actually writing good regulation is hard. Ideally, what would happen is that a few states would try things in different ways, and then when they figure out the best implementation, the federal government would pick up that implementation.
The problem here is that it’s testing the implementation details more than the generalized idea.
It’s as if I wrote code to process data in a certain way, write it for an old mainframe and to process a specific set of data. There’s not a ton of generalizability to other data, and how you implement the code on other systems will impact the outcome. Especially because there are few objective measurements to evaluate the success of legislation
> The problem here is that it’s testing the implementation details more than the generalized idea.
Well, the problem is that you can't test the generalized idea either. Even if a law is passed at the federal level, you're still only testing a specific implementation of a regulatory concept you want to implement.
Having a bunch of entities (the states) try implementing the same concept in different ways allows you to explore more of the solution space than if you only have a single entity (the federal government) do it uniformly upfront!
Yes, although this is expensive and harmful, there is little reason to think the bad experiments would adopt the winner, or that we can even measure the best outcome. Plus, for a lot of stuff - we don’t need experiments, we know what works!
As an example, is there any reason to think we need to do experiments on whether children are fed at school for free?
> little reason to think the bad experiments would adopt the winner
What does this mean? Not a coherent sentence.
> that we can even measure the best outcome
So, exactly the same as when it's done at the federal level.
> for a lot of stuff - we don’t need experiments, we know what works
In terms of legislation? Factually incorrect. Legislation/regulation is extremely difficult to get right and it's incredibly rare that there's precedent that is universally-agreed-upon to be beneficial in general, let alone when the states don't try their hand first.
> As an example, is there any reason to think we need to do experiments on whether children are fed at school for free?
Again, what does this mean? This isn't a coherent sentence either.
This is just not an appropriate response, but I'm happy you feel like you made your point. You can chalk up another internet point for p0wnage of someone you'll never meet.
It's entirely an appropriate response given that you made multiple factual claims without providing evidence, and you made several statements that just were incoherent and so I couldn't even understand what your points were.
> I'm happy you feel like you made your point
Factually, I did make my point. I made factually correct statements, and you responded with false claims and fallacies, and eventually realized that you couldn't actually refute my points and so started emotionally attacking me. That indicates that you don't understand the difference between feelings and things that are factually true.
> Was it your intent to shut down a conversation?
No, it was my intent to discover truth. Do you not realize that facts and truth matters and that you can't just lie about things? If you can't justify your positions with facts and logic, you're just a hypocrite and your opinions are meaningless.
Also, Hacker News is specifically about intellectual curiosity. I want to know if what you're saying is true, and engage with points that you make (feelings are not points), and so I ask questions and challenge. Emotional outbursts, like yours, are the polar opposite - they're anti-intellectual, and shut down curiosity.
But it's actually easier to get a law passed at the state level than at the federal level. As you can see, congress has a hard time passing meaningful laws right now, and from people I know who work there, it's largely because there's too much stuff for them to do - they simply don't have enough bandwidth. At the state level, you have fewer signatures you need to get on petitions, you represent a larger fraction of the constituents, your representatives are more sensitive to your demands, etc.
From a greedy/selfish perspective, having the states prototype laws before the federal government effectively offloads some of the regulatory burden onto the states.
And, when the law works, the other states tends to notice - you get political momentum.
States rights exist in the United States, regardless of if its been used for good or ill. The United States is a federation, and States Rights ARE a thing. States Rights are also used for professional licenses and insurance regulations, jumping to slavery is absurdism.
with the setup of the US, i wouldnt consider that states rights are a thing - the union is only a set of things that the union government womt do. thats nothing to say that the states are allowed to do it
> "Slavery and States' Rights" was a speech given by former Confederate States Army general Joseph Wheeler on July 31, 1894. The speech deals with the American Civil War and is considered to be a "Lost Cause" view of the war's causation. It is generally understood to argue that the United States (the Union) was to blame for the war, and downplays slavery as a cause.
It is absurdism. It is dismissing the 10th amendment because the argument was also used for slavery. No one is thinking that states rights wasn't an argument used for slavery. But this is arguing vegetarianism is evil because hitler was.
I argue it isn’t absurdism when the evidence is clear that the idea of state rights is continuing to be used to subjugate in direct conflict with democracy, versus the actual collective and agreed upon belief of deferring to states rights and putting power closer to the governance of those states.
Historically, it was slavery. Now it’s immigration, reproductive rights, etc. History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. It’s always about control exceeding genuine governance. Maybe that'll change, but until evidence and outcomes demonstrate otherwise, "the purpose of the system is what it does."
History is written by the victors, and the fight never ends. Yesterday's Lost Cause remains just that until current affairs once more brings forth the need for a rebirth of old ideas. Big fan of cannabis legalization? Hop on the State's Rights bus. Don't think that one size fits all? Welcome to the State's Rights bus. Don't think that just because a psychopath is sitting in the highest Federal office, that the rest of the U.S. is obligated to help him? Welcome to the State's Rights bus. Don't think the Feds should be able to universally obliterate women's sovereignty to their own body? Hopefully welcome to the State's Rights bus until such time as we can get something back in play on the Federal level.
It's a disservice to associate a fundamental characteristic of our structure of government with one particularly egregiously unpopular use of it, or to wholesale dismiss it because it tends to be associated with things a lot of people find unpopular. That's rather the point. Arizona or New Mexico can tell off Nevada, who can tell off Utah, or Maryland that how they (Utah/Maryland) do things doesn't fly here.
If you've never been a State hopper, it doesn't quite click, but once you've traveled the U.S. and lived in several different regions for long enough periods of time, it clicks. Not all States are the same, and that's okay.
Allowing states to regulate subscriptions is different than slavery.
In particular, states shouldn’t have the right to restrict travel. If the slaves had free travel they would just leave for northern states. If people are able to leave to other states (even if it means rebuilding their life), plenty of bad state laws are OK because those affected will do so.
The 14th amendment says no state shall deprive you of your life or liberty, not a minimum of one state, should you have have the funds and will to move there.
Could I not make the same argument against you for authoritarian central state rule bullshit? Maybe in some European countries it might actually work alright in their current political climates. But how can you look at the US right now and be like "Yes, we need more centralized and powerful government despite the federal government already wielding far more power than ever before or ever imagined in the past." We have literal centuries full of lessons on why strong authoritarian governments are trash and inevitably result in oppression, corruption, internal conflict, and war.
Usually, it’s only “states rights” when conservatives want something. To be determined if this sticks as it rolls out to more states, or the federal government attempts to infringe on state authority. No different than the Missouri governor overriding voters and repealing voter-approved paid sick leave and minimum wage law, Ohio conservatives attempting to override voters on reproductive healthcare, Florida raising the bar for ballot initiatives, Texas gerrymandering efforts currently in progress, etc.
“Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.” -― David Frum
In 2018, voters passed the Better Boundaries ballot initiative, requiring our legislature to adopt non-gerrymandered congressional maps. In 2020, the legislature passed a law that effectively ignored the results of the initiative, and they drew even more gerrymandered maps after the census.
We sued the state, and last summer our Supreme Court unanimously agreed that, per the state constitution, the legislature does not have the power to unilaterally gut laws passed by ballot initiative after the fact.
So the legislature haphazardly put together their own ballot initiative that would have amended our constitution to give them the authority to ignore the results of ballot initiatives. This was put on our ballots, but our Supreme Court came through unanimously again, saying that the text of the initiative was grossly misleading and that they did not meet the constitutional requirement to notify the electorate far enough in advance of election day. This initiative was on our ballots as they had already been printed, but the results were not counted per the Supreme Court's order.
My state government is still fighting tooth and nail to kill Better Boundaries before the 2026 election. None of these lawmakers give a single shit about the will of the people.
Sinmilar thing happened in Missouri in the 90s, but without supreme court help. Voters put a law on the ballot, it passes, legislature passes another law cancelling it out.
So now when the voters want something they no longer put a law on the ballot, they put a Missouri amendment on the ballot. Those can't just be overwritten by a legislature law, those must either be found unconstitutional or canceled out by another amendment.
It's a fun game the voters of Missouri and their representatives have created for themselves.
Beat for beat what has happened in Ohio. Same for enshrining abortion rights in our state constitution. The state legislature is hostile to the will of the people.
> The bills would also not cover gyms – notorious for arduous membership cancellation policies – which are controlled by the state Health Club Act. This could be amended into the legislation, which Ciresi said he was open to.
What possible good faith reason could there be for exempting gyms?
Creating a gym has relatively low barrier to entry. Buy heavy stuff and put it in an ugly warehouse: now you have a gym! The proliferation of CrossFit is pretty much exactly this
Personal anecdote: I had a subscription to the Philly Inquirer. They made it very easy to sign up online, but there was no way to cancel online. The website only said "call the sales team to cancel".
I changed my home address to California, and shortly after, a new "Cancel Subscription" button appeared on the PI website, which worked great.
I think in this case you just need to change your mailing address with them. There is a California law (and from other comments it looks like 4 other states) that requires them to allow easy cancelations to CA residents. And since it is probably too much work for them to prove you are a CA resident, they just have the logic check if your address is in CA to enable the online cancelation (since they have online signup)
This sucks that it’s not federal. All these separate state regulations just create more burden on the company side to keep up, and we almost had it federally. :(
I am happy to see states still pushing forward. But it’s just so disappointing how much is being taken away for everyone.
Creating more burden on the company side to keep up is the point -- feature, not a bug.
Who do you think lobbies against a federal-level pro-consumer bill? Hint: it's not the consumers.
The risk of a huge patchwork of not-completely-overlapping state level bills is one of the few checks consumers have against federal-level regulatory capture: if it's between a single set of federal-level rules vs. a patchwork of state-by-state rules, the profitable move becomes "okay, lets just let them have the federal-level rules."
The failure modes, of course, are:
- a completely-defanged federal rule which is worse than no rule (right-to-repair has continued to suffer this)
- further consolidation: if it's expensive to do business in multiple states, only the companies with the deepest pockets can continue to grow
Personally, though, my money is still on a growing patchwork of state laws will eventually necessitate a good-enough federal law.
The company only has burden if they want to maintain maximally sketchy but legal business practices in every possible locale. Doing the right thing is easy to implement.
The companies have lots of money. If they are having trouble following the laws, they can just direct the lobbying they were going to do at passing a universal consumer protection law.
Somewhere in the mid-2010s, The Economist lost my trust when I noticed that they did not have a way to cancel their subscription directly, you had to call a number (I was not intending to cancel, but someone pointed that out to me). I called that number on the very same day and cancelled.
Any company which makes entry easy and exit difficult will not have my money. The more difficult the exit, the harder I will try to escape, even if I like their product/service.
I have a good many subs or monthly plans. Only one sends me an email notifying me that I will be soon be billed and the amount billed. All the others never provide any notification whatsoever. Can PA also consider a bill that requires notification of billing via email?? I'd bet this rule combined with easy-to-cancel would be of great, great, benefit to the good citizens of PA.
I wonder how hard it would be to generate synthetic credit card numbers for each subscription service and then just cancel that "card".
I feel there is a whole cadre of consumer tech that is defensive against corporate taxes/tolls on our time. Eg: auto phone tree navigator, only allowing calls from double opted in contacts etc.
Sometimes the company will continue to seek payment and put the missed payments on your credit report.
That should be illegal as well. If people stop paying for a continual service, like a streaming service or a magazine, then the service should just stop; companies shouldn't be able to accrue credit and continue seeking payment, just cancel the service and be done.
If something like a magazine wants a year payment upfront, then let them charge for a full year before the first magazine is delivered.
There are many banks that offer virtual cards. Meaning you can generate unique numbers and individually disable those card numbers.
A related thing is, with Revolut you have disposable cards that are only possible to charge a single time. Unfortunately I have had a bad time trying to use disposable cards. One time I tried it the merchant did a single reversible charge for like a dollar to verify the card and then they couldn’t charge the actual amount so the purchase failed. Another time for a subscription service (I wanted to try their free 30 day trial without forgetting to cancel in time) they apparently got metadata telling them the card was disposable and they refused it so I had to use the non-disposable card number after all.
Can you not instead set the cap at a certain amount? You can do that on privacy, and can also set it to reset the cap after a certain amount of time (for subscriptions)
One of the ways to prevent unauthorized charges is to use a virtual credit card. Many credit cards provide a way to create virtual credit card based on your real credit card, for example, Citibank [1] and Capital One [2]. Then if the merchant makes it hard for you to cancel, just delete your virtual credit card.
You can specify any expiration date for the virtual card (with at least 1 month validity). You can also set per-transaction limits on this credit card, which ensures the merchant can't charge more than the agreed amount.
> One of the ways to prevent unauthorized charges is to use a virtual credit card
This prevents payments, not charges. I’ve met two totally separate funds that buy up these claims and litigate them because killing your card doesn’t void the purchase contract. (And your liability keeps actuating so long as it’s not cancelled.)
That's true. In addition to preventing payments, you also have to make a reasonable attempt to cancel service.
Recently in the case of Dish Network, I tried to call to cancel service, and the wait time is 45 minutes. There's no way I am doing that. (They don't let you cancel online or via chat, calling is the only option). Instead I contacted state attorney general's office and they made Dish cancel service.
If you can prove that you made reasonable attempt to cancel service then you're off the hook. In my case Dish sent my account to collections (for the 1 month it took to cancel service) and I wrote them back that I am not paying and why. Never heard back from them after that.
The article says this doesn't apply to entities regulated by the state utility commission, the FCC or specifically gym memberships. That would seem to exclude a lot of the worst offenders.
What are the most notorious offenders for hard to cancel services? I heard lots of horror stories in the early 2000s (AOL!) but I have not ran into this recently.
I buy a lot of plugins for WordPress sites, and there are definitely some companies in that ecosystem known to utilize dark patterns and have difficult cancellation processes.
With the recent federal block of click to cancel, states implementing this will be the way to go.
> Both bills passed the House with broad bipartisan support. If the legislation is agreed to by the state Senate and signed by Gov Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania would join several other states that have moved to create such laws over the past year since the FTC began working on its now-defunct rule.
> New York, California, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Virginia have all enacted state-level policies that include provisions similar to Ciresi and Borowski’s bills.
If you live in a state that has not passed such legislation, I would encourage you to hound your reps until they do. 45 states to go.
Just to be clear the block was due to a procedural issue and I wouldn’t at all be surprised to see this sorta thing have bipartisan support at the federal level, seeing as it enjoys bipartisan support at the state level in every jurisdiction it is attempted. The main hurdle at the federal level would be getting it out of committee.
To add some color to the regulatory issue as I understand it, the court ruled that the impact of this rule would be over $100M so they’re required to assess cost/benefits of alternatives and submit them during the public comment period.
I don’t even know what the alternative would be apart from doing nothing. Making it more of a pain for consumers to cancel is zero sum on first order analysis (if I lose a dollar because I can’t cancel the company gets a dollar) but at a second order makes our economy less dynamic by entrenching incumbent companies and making it harder for consumers to allocate their money towards better alternatives.
If a company can trap your money in a labyrinth of process they don’t have to compete on quality or price. Simple as that.
I’m always amazed how willing the courts are to block actions like this on vague technicalities but are then so deferent to police violations of civil liberties where even a violation can still upholds the original judgement against that person and only applies going forward.
This is not a vague technicality, though? The FTC has to obey the law, and the law says that if they make a new rule that has more than $100M of direct monetary impact, they have to use a more involved process. They originally tried to waive this by saying that the rule doesn't have more than $100M impact, but that's just clearly false.
It's not a good thing to cheer rules being broken when you like the reason.
You never hear about the millions of perfectly reasonable rulings every year.
The stuff based on vague technicalities that result in something you agree with isn’t memorable, so it’s the vague technicalities you disagree with that’s memorable.
The unreasonable ones seem to be growing at an unusually high rate since January.
Is this based on any sort of statistics, or is it just another media narrative?
The process is broken. If there was an issue with no alternatives being specified, the right time to bring that up was during the public comment period when there weren’t any alternatives. Not after, imo.
I get that process needs to be followed but this is allowing unnecessary gamesmanship.
It was brought up, by the FTC members who voted against it, precisely because it didn’t follow the process. But the democrats had the majority so it passed anyway. And then was immediately sued for failing to follow the process.
Do lawmakers want a dynamic economy? I guess that would make it harder to keep track of whose “lobbying” checks have cleared.
Orthogonal issue, imo. They can accept bribes from new companies or old ones.
I don't see how it isn't blatant judicial corruption that big business gets special legal considerations because they might not earn as much money.
FTC can still do it without the legislature. They just have to follow a more rigorous process in rule-making.
The FTC under the current administration has zero interest in pushing this forward
When you look at what is happening in Washington, it is disingenuous to say something was blocked because of a procedural issue. It was blocked because the party that controls all three branches of the Federal government didn't want it to pass.
Washington DC or Washington State?
No, it was exactly blocked because of a procedural issue. Despite the fears of many, Trump is not yet a dictator, and the Republican Party is not in total control. Judges rule in ways that they don't like all the time.
This keeps coming up because Trump tries to act like a dictator and just order things to be the way he wants, and it doesn't work that way. There are procedures that the Federal government has to follow; it can't just ignore them and get things done right now. And in fact, the government being forced to follow procedure is a very good thing, even if it's something we want the government to do. It's one of the things standing between where we are and a dictatorship.
I'm afraid I don't really buy that. The court didn't have to seek out this procedural issue. The rules are complex enough to justify any decision you wish. They simply decided by fiat that this case was worth more than $100 million, and overruled the subject matter experts.
It appears that they make their decision, and then justify it. That may not actually be the case -- but if it isn't, the outcome is indistinguishable.
It's true that they're not always favoring the President. But he is increasingly concentrating his power, and it favors him more and more.
I don't think the court sought it out. I think whoever filed the lawsuit did.
The Party sought it out to put before its activist court. At least one recent Supreme Court ruling (gay wedding website) was issued instead of having the case tossed out for lack of standing. If it had been a discrimination case that went the other way, you can bet your ass they would have done the homework to find there's no "there" there.
> But as the case advanced, [the request in dispute] was referenced by her attorneys when lawyers for the state of Colorado pressed Smith on whether she had sufficient grounds to sue.
> "I was incredibly surprised given the fact that I've been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years," said Stewart, who declined to give his last name for fear of harassment and threats.
> Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on Friday called the lawsuit a "made up case" because Smith wasn't offering wedding website services when the suit was filed.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supre...
No, it was blocked through a procedural issue. Why and how are not the same thing.
More than that, it was a good ruling. Judges not rubberstamping non/lowball estimates rather than the mandating max costing, is toward the public good.
[flagged]
I confess to a lot of schadenfreude at the powers that be, like the US Chamber of Commerce, who fight against these federal bills and then find themselves fighting 50 slightly incompatible laws. Oh, you thought it was going to be hard to comply with that one, single pro-consumer regulation? Have fun!
See also: a patchwork of privacy laws[0] that are vastly harder to comply with than a national level GDPR-style law would be.
[0] https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/privacy/state-privacy-...
> Tennessee
Rare red state w.
I live here. We actually have fairly decent consumer protections... at least against product misrepresenation.
For example, our state constitution prohibits products being sold in containers which misrepresent the amount of their contents (albeit, it still happens).
Conversely, we also founded the pay-day-loan industry, which is just disgraceful (about a dozen states have banned entirely). Only passed because Allan Jones ("father of payday loans") donated $30,000 to PACs in the mid-90s.
I'm currently looking for greener pastures, up-to-and-including expatriation. This state overall has politicians' heads so far up their own...
> I'm currently looking for greener pastures, up-to-and-including expatriation.
https://hiring.cafe/ might be of help, no affiliation, just want to help everyone who wants out get out. Same with https://old.reddit.com/r/AmerExit/ on the expat front.
> With the recent federal block of click to cancel, states implementing this will be the way to go.
State's rights is just about always the best way to go. It's nice to see the power being returned to the people.
State's rights doesn't give power to the people. It gives power to mostly gerrymandered state legislatures and to appointed judges.
Click to cancel is popular among the people. It was blocked despite this. If the people had power (as opposed to lobbyists, or big business), this would had passed federally.
It was blocked because it was implemented illegally, not because people don't have power.
How could this already be passed in CA? Does CA not have gerrymandering, appointed judges, and lobbyists?
> State's rights is just about always the best way to go
Generally agreed. I live in Canada and think we would be much better off if we pushed more legislation away from the feds and to the provinces. The needs/wants of Alberta/Saskatchewan is much different than Quebec for example.
Gun control is a major divisive issue in Canada as gun control is 100% at the federal level, but the preferences of how it is handles varies hugely between provinces, so much so that some provinces are threatening to not enforce the federal laws.
Im fine with the feds managing border enforcement, immigration, and military — and collecting taxes to fund those programs — but other than that they should leave to the provinces.
The other alternative is that everyone is subject to the mob rule of the major population centers which have much different needs/wants then those outside of the centers. Why not just give the population centers what they want and those in rural areas what they want?
Gun control is harder to do like that because guns are physical objects and it's trivial to bring them across unmanned borders. Something like subscriptions are much easier to deal with because that can just be based on billing address.
It seems to work fine in the USA? Lots of guns illegal in California are legal elsewhere? There are also lots of municipalities that ban guns like NYC.
Also consider that huge amounts of illegal guns cross the Canadian federal border, despite there being border control.
Same thing with bear spray, illegal to carry in most cases but anyone over the age of 18 can get it because it has real legitimate uses.
> It seems to work fine in the USA? Lots of guns illegal in California are legal elsewhere? There are also lots of municipalities that ban guns like NYC
It works as well as having a peeing section in the pool
I see it that California has a pool where you aren’t allowed to pee in and Texas has a pool you are allowed to pee in. People are free to use whatever pool they want as long as they follow the rules of the pool?
That feels like a willful misunderstanding of the analogy.
Not really, there are lots of examples where you are not allowed to possess certain objects in certain places, I believe that guns are just a hot topic that results in knee jerk reactions. A simple example is I cannot ride an atv in certain forested areas during wildfire season, do we ban all atvs because someone may bring an atv in a place they are not allowed? No, we punish those who bring the atv where they are not allowed.
If you want to continue the pool analogy, many pools don’t let you bring in pool noodles and other floating objects into the lap swimming lane. That doesn’t mean you ban pool noodles, it means you kick people out who don’t follow the rules.
If someone possesses an object they are not allowed to have in a certain place they should be punished, the real problem is that Canada has a deteriorated rule of law where those who breaks the laws of the country are not stopped.
giving provinces too much power has generally been a problem for Canada, and a major goal of the current government is to bring more unity across provinces in terms of regulations, so that canadian markets are bigger than one province.
each province still has cities, so you arent getting away having cities dominate. instead, i think cities should be provinces to themselves, same as seattle and portland should both be states in the US. the rural albertans can take care of themselves without taxing calgary and edmonton.
Rural albertans have much more in common with people in Edmonton and Calgary than they do with rural Quebec.
I agree that the current trend in government is that feds are getting more power in Canada, but I dont think it is a good thing as now the entire country has to live under the rule of like 3 cities.
That’s good and all for things that begin and end within a single state. Some things really should be done at the federal level. I don’t think a single service I subscribe to is based in the state in which I live.
Doesn't matter, you get click-to-cancel as long as you're in the state that has the law. Where they are based is irrelevant.
It's absurd that such laws would need to be passed 50 times for all US citizens to benefit from it. It should be done at the federal level.
State and local laws should be addressing state and local issues. The pros and cons of a click-to-cancel law don't change from state to state.
No way this passes in 50 states. I would guess something like 15 states pass an analogous law.
The question: will companies segregate their customers? Everyone gets to click-to-cancel or is there now a dedicated code path just for the lucky few?
We are only here because so many businesses made it a burden to cancel, so I know how I would bet.
> The question: will companies segregate their customers? Everyone gets to click-to-cancel or is there now a dedicated code path just for the lucky few?
The answer to that is that companies will use geofencing to restrict click-to-cancel to only the states that pass such laws. We've already seen this happen on a national level, when Apple segregated the EU and the rest of the world on the topic of sideloading
> It's absurd that such laws would need to be passed 50 times for all US citizens to benefit from it. It should be done at the federal level.
You're missing an important reason why regulating at the state level first is a good idea: because it allows you to test the implementation with a small fraction of citizens before rolling it out.
Yes, basically everyone wants click-to-cancel, but actually writing good regulation is hard. Ideally, what would happen is that a few states would try things in different ways, and then when they figure out the best implementation, the federal government would pick up that implementation.
The problem here is that it’s testing the implementation details more than the generalized idea.
It’s as if I wrote code to process data in a certain way, write it for an old mainframe and to process a specific set of data. There’s not a ton of generalizability to other data, and how you implement the code on other systems will impact the outcome. Especially because there are few objective measurements to evaluate the success of legislation
> The problem here is that it’s testing the implementation details more than the generalized idea.
Well, the problem is that you can't test the generalized idea either. Even if a law is passed at the federal level, you're still only testing a specific implementation of a regulatory concept you want to implement.
Having a bunch of entities (the states) try implementing the same concept in different ways allows you to explore more of the solution space than if you only have a single entity (the federal government) do it uniformly upfront!
Yes, although this is expensive and harmful, there is little reason to think the bad experiments would adopt the winner, or that we can even measure the best outcome. Plus, for a lot of stuff - we don’t need experiments, we know what works!
As an example, is there any reason to think we need to do experiments on whether children are fed at school for free?
> expensive
Citation needed
> harmful
Citation needed
> little reason to think the bad experiments would adopt the winner
What does this mean? Not a coherent sentence.
> that we can even measure the best outcome
So, exactly the same as when it's done at the federal level.
> for a lot of stuff - we don’t need experiments, we know what works
In terms of legislation? Factually incorrect. Legislation/regulation is extremely difficult to get right and it's incredibly rare that there's precedent that is universally-agreed-upon to be beneficial in general, let alone when the states don't try their hand first.
> As an example, is there any reason to think we need to do experiments on whether children are fed at school for free?
Again, what does this mean? This isn't a coherent sentence either.
This is just not an appropriate response, but I'm happy you feel like you made your point. You can chalk up another internet point for p0wnage of someone you'll never meet.
Was it your intent to shut down a conversation?
> This is just not an appropriate response
It's entirely an appropriate response given that you made multiple factual claims without providing evidence, and you made several statements that just were incoherent and so I couldn't even understand what your points were.
> I'm happy you feel like you made your point
Factually, I did make my point. I made factually correct statements, and you responded with false claims and fallacies, and eventually realized that you couldn't actually refute my points and so started emotionally attacking me. That indicates that you don't understand the difference between feelings and things that are factually true.
> Was it your intent to shut down a conversation?
No, it was my intent to discover truth. Do you not realize that facts and truth matters and that you can't just lie about things? If you can't justify your positions with facts and logic, you're just a hypocrite and your opinions are meaningless.
Also, Hacker News is specifically about intellectual curiosity. I want to know if what you're saying is true, and engage with points that you make (feelings are not points), and so I ask questions and challenge. Emotional outbursts, like yours, are the polar opposite - they're anti-intellectual, and shut down curiosity.
That’s fair, that is a good point.
But still in many cases I think a less-than-perfect law is better than none.
I agree!
But it's actually easier to get a law passed at the state level than at the federal level. As you can see, congress has a hard time passing meaningful laws right now, and from people I know who work there, it's largely because there's too much stuff for them to do - they simply don't have enough bandwidth. At the state level, you have fewer signatures you need to get on petitions, you represent a larger fraction of the constituents, your representatives are more sensitive to your demands, etc.
From a greedy/selfish perspective, having the states prototype laws before the federal government effectively offloads some of the regulatory burden onto the states.
And, when the law works, the other states tends to notice - you get political momentum.
[dead]
[flagged]
States rights exist in the United States, regardless of if its been used for good or ill. The United States is a federation, and States Rights ARE a thing. States Rights are also used for professional licenses and insurance regulations, jumping to slavery is absurdism.
with the setup of the US, i wouldnt consider that states rights are a thing - the union is only a set of things that the union government womt do. thats nothing to say that the states are allowed to do it
> "Slavery and States' Rights" was a speech given by former Confederate States Army general Joseph Wheeler on July 31, 1894. The speech deals with the American Civil War and is considered to be a "Lost Cause" view of the war's causation. It is generally understood to argue that the United States (the Union) was to blame for the war, and downplays slavery as a cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_and_States%27_Rights
https://web.archive.org/web/20180427082228/http://www.civilw...
https://news.wttw.com/2022/07/14/states-rights-supreme-court...
This is simply history. Calling it absurdism indicates a lack of historical knowledge. https://xkcd.com/1053/
It is absurdism. It is dismissing the 10th amendment because the argument was also used for slavery. No one is thinking that states rights wasn't an argument used for slavery. But this is arguing vegetarianism is evil because hitler was.
I argue it isn’t absurdism when the evidence is clear that the idea of state rights is continuing to be used to subjugate in direct conflict with democracy, versus the actual collective and agreed upon belief of deferring to states rights and putting power closer to the governance of those states.
Historically, it was slavery. Now it’s immigration, reproductive rights, etc. History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. It’s always about control exceeding genuine governance. Maybe that'll change, but until evidence and outcomes demonstrate otherwise, "the purpose of the system is what it does."
> the evidence is clear that the idea of state rights is continuing to be used to subjugate in direct conflict with democracy
Can you provide an example of such evidence?
Abortion primarily, but also the examples I enumerated upthread.
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/07/repu... | https://archive.is/2022.07.18-235856/https://www.theatlantic...
Abortion is a bad example. Plenty of states protect reproductive rights.
The issue was that it was not a law in the first place but rather court ruling.
History is written by the victors, and the fight never ends. Yesterday's Lost Cause remains just that until current affairs once more brings forth the need for a rebirth of old ideas. Big fan of cannabis legalization? Hop on the State's Rights bus. Don't think that one size fits all? Welcome to the State's Rights bus. Don't think that just because a psychopath is sitting in the highest Federal office, that the rest of the U.S. is obligated to help him? Welcome to the State's Rights bus. Don't think the Feds should be able to universally obliterate women's sovereignty to their own body? Hopefully welcome to the State's Rights bus until such time as we can get something back in play on the Federal level.
It's a disservice to associate a fundamental characteristic of our structure of government with one particularly egregiously unpopular use of it, or to wholesale dismiss it because it tends to be associated with things a lot of people find unpopular. That's rather the point. Arizona or New Mexico can tell off Nevada, who can tell off Utah, or Maryland that how they (Utah/Maryland) do things doesn't fly here.
If you've never been a State hopper, it doesn't quite click, but once you've traveled the U.S. and lived in several different regions for long enough periods of time, it clicks. Not all States are the same, and that's okay.
Allowing states to regulate subscriptions is different than slavery.
In particular, states shouldn’t have the right to restrict travel. If the slaves had free travel they would just leave for northern states. If people are able to leave to other states (even if it means rebuilding their life), plenty of bad state laws are OK because those affected will do so.
The 14th amendment says no state shall deprive you of your life or liberty, not a minimum of one state, should you have have the funds and will to move there.
Could I not make the same argument against you for authoritarian central state rule bullshit? Maybe in some European countries it might actually work alright in their current political climates. But how can you look at the US right now and be like "Yes, we need more centralized and powerful government despite the federal government already wielding far more power than ever before or ever imagined in the past." We have literal centuries full of lessons on why strong authoritarian governments are trash and inevitably result in oppression, corruption, internal conflict, and war.
Anything can be used for evil, doesn't mean that thing instantly becomes evil.
[flagged]
Usually, it’s only “states rights” when conservatives want something. To be determined if this sticks as it rolls out to more states, or the federal government attempts to infringe on state authority. No different than the Missouri governor overriding voters and repealing voter-approved paid sick leave and minimum wage law, Ohio conservatives attempting to override voters on reproductive healthcare, Florida raising the bar for ballot initiatives, Texas gerrymandering efforts currently in progress, etc.
“Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.” -― David Frum
https://www.google.com/search?q=hypocrisy+of+states+rights
Don't forget what happened in Utah last year.
In 2018, voters passed the Better Boundaries ballot initiative, requiring our legislature to adopt non-gerrymandered congressional maps. In 2020, the legislature passed a law that effectively ignored the results of the initiative, and they drew even more gerrymandered maps after the census.
We sued the state, and last summer our Supreme Court unanimously agreed that, per the state constitution, the legislature does not have the power to unilaterally gut laws passed by ballot initiative after the fact.
So the legislature haphazardly put together their own ballot initiative that would have amended our constitution to give them the authority to ignore the results of ballot initiatives. This was put on our ballots, but our Supreme Court came through unanimously again, saying that the text of the initiative was grossly misleading and that they did not meet the constitutional requirement to notify the electorate far enough in advance of election day. This initiative was on our ballots as they had already been printed, but the results were not counted per the Supreme Court's order.
My state government is still fighting tooth and nail to kill Better Boundaries before the 2026 election. None of these lawmakers give a single shit about the will of the people.
Sinmilar thing happened in Missouri in the 90s, but without supreme court help. Voters put a law on the ballot, it passes, legislature passes another law cancelling it out.
So now when the voters want something they no longer put a law on the ballot, they put a Missouri amendment on the ballot. Those can't just be overwritten by a legislature law, those must either be found unconstitutional or canceled out by another amendment.
It's a fun game the voters of Missouri and their representatives have created for themselves.
Beat for beat what has happened in Ohio. Same for enshrining abortion rights in our state constitution. The state legislature is hostile to the will of the people.
> The bills would also not cover gyms – notorious for arduous membership cancellation policies – which are controlled by the state Health Club Act. This could be amended into the legislation, which Ciresi said he was open to.
What possible good faith reason could there be for exempting gyms?
We need some kind of antitrust gym laws. There are far too few gyms for the amount of demand they see.
Creating a gym has relatively low barrier to entry. Buy heavy stuff and put it in an ugly warehouse: now you have a gym! The proliferation of CrossFit is pretty much exactly this
Good faith LOL
fat people epidemic, and the idea that obesity is deadly, so make it harderfor people to give up on there resolutions
Personal anecdote: I had a subscription to the Philly Inquirer. They made it very easy to sign up online, but there was no way to cancel online. The website only said "call the sales team to cancel".
I changed my home address to California, and shortly after, a new "Cancel Subscription" button appeared on the PI website, which worked great.
Instructions unclear? Do I move to California before or after I cancel my subscription(s)?
I think in this case you just need to change your mailing address with them. There is a California law (and from other comments it looks like 4 other states) that requires them to allow easy cancelations to CA residents. And since it is probably too much work for them to prove you are a CA resident, they just have the logic check if your address is in CA to enable the online cancelation (since they have online signup)
This sucks that it’s not federal. All these separate state regulations just create more burden on the company side to keep up, and we almost had it federally. :(
I am happy to see states still pushing forward. But it’s just so disappointing how much is being taken away for everyone.
Creating more burden on the company side to keep up is the point -- feature, not a bug.
Who do you think lobbies against a federal-level pro-consumer bill? Hint: it's not the consumers.
The risk of a huge patchwork of not-completely-overlapping state level bills is one of the few checks consumers have against federal-level regulatory capture: if it's between a single set of federal-level rules vs. a patchwork of state-by-state rules, the profitable move becomes "okay, lets just let them have the federal-level rules."
The failure modes, of course, are:
- a completely-defanged federal rule which is worse than no rule (right-to-repair has continued to suffer this)
- further consolidation: if it's expensive to do business in multiple states, only the companies with the deepest pockets can continue to grow
Personally, though, my money is still on a growing patchwork of state laws will eventually necessitate a good-enough federal law.
The company only has burden if they want to maintain maximally sketchy but legal business practices in every possible locale. Doing the right thing is easy to implement.
The companies have lots of money. If they are having trouble following the laws, they can just direct the lobbying they were going to do at passing a universal consumer protection law.
Somewhere in the mid-2010s, The Economist lost my trust when I noticed that they did not have a way to cancel their subscription directly, you had to call a number (I was not intending to cancel, but someone pointed that out to me). I called that number on the very same day and cancelled.
Any company which makes entry easy and exit difficult will not have my money. The more difficult the exit, the harder I will try to escape, even if I like their product/service.
I have a good many subs or monthly plans. Only one sends me an email notifying me that I will be soon be billed and the amount billed. All the others never provide any notification whatsoever. Can PA also consider a bill that requires notification of billing via email?? I'd bet this rule combined with easy-to-cancel would be of great, great, benefit to the good citizens of PA.
I wonder how hard it would be to generate synthetic credit card numbers for each subscription service and then just cancel that "card".
I feel there is a whole cadre of consumer tech that is defensive against corporate taxes/tolls on our time. Eg: auto phone tree navigator, only allowing calls from double opted in contacts etc.
Sometimes the company will continue to seek payment and put the missed payments on your credit report.
That should be illegal as well. If people stop paying for a continual service, like a streaming service or a magazine, then the service should just stop; companies shouldn't be able to accrue credit and continue seeking payment, just cancel the service and be done.
If something like a magazine wants a year payment upfront, then let them charge for a full year before the first magazine is delivered.
There are many banks that offer virtual cards. Meaning you can generate unique numbers and individually disable those card numbers.
A related thing is, with Revolut you have disposable cards that are only possible to charge a single time. Unfortunately I have had a bad time trying to use disposable cards. One time I tried it the merchant did a single reversible charge for like a dollar to verify the card and then they couldn’t charge the actual amount so the purchase failed. Another time for a subscription service (I wanted to try their free 30 day trial without forgetting to cancel in time) they apparently got metadata telling them the card was disposable and they refused it so I had to use the non-disposable card number after all.
Can you not instead set the cap at a certain amount? You can do that on privacy, and can also set it to reset the cap after a certain amount of time (for subscriptions)
There’s many services providing virtual credit cards for exactly that purpose: https://www.privacy.com/
Interesting I thought it didn't pass (maybe was a different one for the entire country)
Yeah the gym cancellation thing where you have to drive to the location and sign a paper was annoying me/had to do it
Hope they do something similar with cookies where there has to be an option to say no/reject all
The FTC had a rule against it, but courts struck it down, so now states are doing it individually
One of the ways to prevent unauthorized charges is to use a virtual credit card. Many credit cards provide a way to create virtual credit card based on your real credit card, for example, Citibank [1] and Capital One [2]. Then if the merchant makes it hard for you to cancel, just delete your virtual credit card.
You can specify any expiration date for the virtual card (with at least 1 month validity). You can also set per-transaction limits on this credit card, which ensures the merchant can't charge more than the agreed amount.
[1] https://www.cardbenefits.citi.com/Products/Virtual-Account-N...
[2] https://www.capitalone.com/learn-grow/money-management/what-...
> One of the ways to prevent unauthorized charges is to use a virtual credit card
This prevents payments, not charges. I’ve met two totally separate funds that buy up these claims and litigate them because killing your card doesn’t void the purchase contract. (And your liability keeps actuating so long as it’s not cancelled.)
That's true. In addition to preventing payments, you also have to make a reasonable attempt to cancel service.
Recently in the case of Dish Network, I tried to call to cancel service, and the wait time is 45 minutes. There's no way I am doing that. (They don't let you cancel online or via chat, calling is the only option). Instead I contacted state attorney general's office and they made Dish cancel service.
If you can prove that you made reasonable attempt to cancel service then you're off the hook. In my case Dish sent my account to collections (for the 1 month it took to cancel service) and I wrote them back that I am not paying and why. Never heard back from them after that.
Sending a letter to the company pretty much always works and provides proof of the attempt to boot.
I should be able to cancel from my bank. Use the Visa/MC monopoly for good.
Yeah, this is the way. The charges ultimately get drawn from that account, so that should be the place where I can stop that from happening.
I'd much rather just break up the monopoly
The article says this doesn't apply to entities regulated by the state utility commission, the FCC or specifically gym memberships. That would seem to exclude a lot of the worst offenders.
What are the most notorious offenders for hard to cancel services? I heard lots of horror stories in the early 2000s (AOL!) but I have not ran into this recently.
I buy a lot of plugins for WordPress sites, and there are definitely some companies in that ecosystem known to utilize dark patterns and have difficult cancellation processes.
Gyms and newspapers
Home security companies and newspapers.
Related background:
US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44504699
As a software engineer, this means job security, lol.
If a few more states pass similar legislation, the default would be to make it as easy as possible to unsubscribe/cancel.
> As a software engineer, this means job security, lol.
My bro Claude would like a word with you.
yay! if only the FTC had implemented this nationally and not had it rolled back by this admin!
Time for trump to declare click to cancel woke and communist so they can pass a federal law banning it like they are passing other similar laws.
[dead]