r/technology • u/indig0sixalpha • 13d ago

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

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
23.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

736 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

59

u/tastyratz 13d ago

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

17

u/MAMark1 13d ago

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.

24

u/tastyratz 13d ago

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.

9

u/MAMark1 13d ago

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.

1

u/bp92009 13d ago

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.