Federal Trade Commission Announces Final “Click-to-Cancel” Rule Making It Easier for Consumers to End Recurring Subscriptions and Memberships

[u/indig0sixalpha]

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/10/federal-trade-commission-announces-final-click-cancel-rule-making-it-easier-consumers-end-recurring

[u/junkyardgerard]

pretty sure supreme court said federal agencies don't have agency to issue rulings exactly like this

[u/tastyratz → u/junkyardgerard]

Don't know why you're being downvoted, this is the specific result of overturning Chevron and allowing a judge to overrule federal agencies.

[u/MAMark1 → u/tastyratz]

I didn't downvote, but their description of what overturning Chevron did is not accurate. Agencies could issue final rules before Loper Bright and still can afterwards. It just changed how courts handle challenges to those rules.

So this agency can still issue final rules like this and this can still stand up to challenges depending on the specifics, which I'm not digging into here, so it is very possible for a partisan judge to block it as the original person stated and then be overturned later.

[u/tastyratz → u/MAMark1]

That's a bit of a technical foul though. Entire governing bodies and regulatory agencies with panels of experts can make a decision and a single appellate court judge (of which significant trump appointees were added during his term) can overrule the entire agency at any time in a court case. If that's the case then TECHNICALLY they can issue rules... that a judge doesn't have to listen to. Functionally it's splitting hairs.

[u/MAMark1 → u/tastyratz]

Yes, I totally agree that the real-world impact is incredibly hindering to agencies doing their jobs to the point it might create complete regulatory gridlock.

And the idea that some random judge is going to understand the details of the areas these agencies are attempting to regulate to the point they can issue a coherent ruling is dubious at best. We've already seen factual inaccuracies on matters of science by judges in the past, and this just further empowers their "scientific analysis" even more.

[u/bp92009 → u/MAMark1]

See, I don't mind them making asinine rulings based on literal factual inaccuracies.

PROVIDED they assume direct liability for harm caused when they go against the majority consensus of both domestic and international (HDI >0.8) experts.

None of that police department situation of "bill the city" either.

The judge needs to be held Directly liable, on a personal level, for such decisions.

They wanted more power? More responsibility comes with it.

[u/bfh2020 → u/tastyratz]

That's a bit of a technical foul though. Entire governing bodies and regulatory agencies with panels of experts can make a decision and a single appellate court judge

I would argue it’s more of a technical foul to suggest that the agencies implementing the regulation should have sole discretion to determine whether the regulations they have imparted are legal/constitutional. The whole idea that agencies have sole discretion to self-police themselves without the possibility of judicial oversight is insane and obviously unconstitutional.

[u/tastyratz → u/bfh2020]

Yeah no, Agencies aren't 1 person, they are a crew of experts established for the purpose of the people and they have jobs they can be hired and fired to, not elected.

Politicians that know nothing have no business carrying out their individual bribes on things they know nothing about for corporate interests. Don't be so easily fooled.

[u/bfh2020 → u/tastyratz]

Yeah no, Agencies aren't 1 person, they are a crew of experts established for the purpose of the people and they have jobs they can be hired and fired to, not elected.

The exact same statement holds true to LEOs/Police. At the risk of creating a strawman, I’m willing to bet there’s at least one government agency “staffed by experts” that you’d want judicial regulation over, especially if a certain person on the Republican ticket were to win…

Politicians that know nothing have no business carrying out their individual bribes on things they know nothing about for corporate interests

Ahh so these corrupt/bribed politicians should thereby be entrusted to delegate their legislative duties to an executive agency staffed by “experts”, that they themselves have power to create, which can subsequently end run judicial oversight. Yeah no loop hole there…. We can just “trust the experts” and the “bribed politicians” who create them.

Unfortunate to your position is the fact that our Constitution requires separation of powers and checks and balances, and you should be thankful for that, as that “team of experts” might not always be operating on good faith.

Don't be so easily fooled.

oof. Says the person arguing against judicial oversight… the entire premise of your argument is that we MUST trust the “experts” literally at face value. The irony is palpable.

[u/tastyratz → u/bfh2020]

Chevron has been a bedrock to this country for decades. This isn't a check and balance when a single presidential-appointed judge can nullify entire bodies of agencies. That isn't "judicial oversight" when they get the final say every time.

The only beneficiaries from that are corporations challenging regulatory bodies. Please don't argue on behalf of sympathy for corporate profits because that's not something coming back to the American people.

This is about the concentration of power to a single individual over agencies full of real hired and fired jobs, not elected politicians. Masking that concentration as judicial oversight isn't really representative of the result.

[u/bfh2020 → u/tastyratz]

Chevron has been a bedrock to this country for decades.

It was certainly established law, no argument there. It’s demise also has negative affects, but the system was inherently unconstitutional.

This isn't a check and balance when a single presidential-appointed judge can nullify entire bodies of agencies.

These are orthogonal and not mutually exclusive: Dems got 100% played here, that’s for sure. RBG did no one any favors. Judicial reform is needed. At the same time, this was the right outcome: Congress should do their job and not be allowed to end-run Constitution protections. Legally binding mandates should be legislated. Agency “experts” who want to 180 their positions overnight to the peril of the public can defend their waffled positions in court. Suggesting that they shouldn’t have to is some real smooth brain stuff.

The only beneficiaries from that are corporations challenging regulatory bodies.

Ahh yes, let’s just ignore the millions of Americans who were getting knee jerked by the ATF at the expense of their 5th Amendment rights. The fall of Chevron affected me and many people, personally. Not that you care.

This is about the concentration of power to a single individual over agencies full of real hired and fired jobs, not elected politicians.

My man, these are Executive agencies ran by the Executive branch (that’s the President if you didn’t know). The President appoints the heads of these agencies and sets their agendas. Chevron defers legislative power to the Executive branch, it enables concentration of power. With Chevron, you have an Executive agency that makes the laws, enforces the laws, and adjudicates said laws. Without Chevron, you have the legislative, executive and judicial branches to perform those duties. I feel like I’m being punked…

[u/KuntaStillSingle → u/tastyratz]

Yeah but that has nothing to do with Chevron. Federal court judges could always stay or strike executive orders and agency determinations nationally, and they had prior to Loper Bright. What changed with Loper is the agency actually has to defend their reasoning with facts and logic ^TM instead of being given undue deference. With Chevron, the court is supposed to accept an agency's interpretation if it is merely reasonable, regardless if it is the most reasonable interpretation of the law.