US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel
If a few more states pass similar legislation, the default would be to make it as easy as possible to unsubscribe/cancel.
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-...
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.
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.
I am happy to see states still pushing forward. But it’s just so disappointing how much is being taken away for everyone.
toomuchtodo•3h ago
> 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.
swesour•3h ago
Rare red state w.
ProllyInfamous•2h ago
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...
toomuchtodo•2h ago
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.
amendegree•3h ago
sokoloff•14m ago
janalsncm•8m ago
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.
stronglikedan•1h ago
State's rights is just about always the best way to go. It's nice to see the power being returned to the people.
toomuchtodo•1h ago
“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
babypuncher•1h ago
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.
heymijo•7m ago
xyst•1h ago
Same thought process the American south used to justify slavery and precedent into the American Civil War.
ecshafer•1h ago
toomuchtodo•1h ago
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/
ecshafer•39m ago
toomuchtodo•32m ago
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."
simplify•1h ago
armchairhacker•30m ago
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.
__turbobrew__•56m ago
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?
mook•11m ago
nkrisc•31m ago
kstrauser•59m ago
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-...