Not surprised, just disappointed. We went from the most pro consumer WH to what is shaping up to be the worst WH for consumer rights in my lifetime.
Not surprised, just disappointed. We went from the most pro consumer WH to what is shaping up to be the worst WH for consumer rights in my lifetime.
Engadget seems to have the least amount of information on this topic. The Ars Technica article went into a lot more detail.
I think this is bad in the short term, but good in the long run. The ruling doesn’t stop the FTC from going through the process again for the Click-to-Cancel rule. They just have to follow the correct procedures. In this case they underestimated the annual economic effect that their rule would have, and at a certain threshold they are required to have a preliminary regulatory analysis for a rule.
The administration can weaponize the FTC if they really want to, so the courts ruling that the FTC has to follow the correct procedures helps to at least keep some things in check.
Funny how courts only apply this requirement to agencies when run under Democrats. Meanwhile, RFK is ignoring all basic procedures to stop vaccines, etc…
Oh, don’t pretend that a Republican measure is going to be put under the same scrutiny. This is just an easy excuse so to keep people like you placated with a thin veneer of respectability.
The administration is going to weaponize the FTC anyway, and the supreme Court will back THAT to the hilt.
As for economic effect… That isn’t something the court should be concerned with anyway! Who cares if it’s profitable if it’s illegal!
Oh I’m not pretending that at all and I don’t see how I implied that in any way. What I’m trying point out is that you’ll have precedence on your side when going to court if the FTC does the same thing for a Republican measure.
What do you mean by “people like you?”
I’m not against the click-to-cancel rule, we definitely need something like that.
The court ruling wasn’t on the economic effect of the click-to-cancel rule. The ruling was that the FTC skipped their own requirements to make this rule.
By “people like you” I mean people that see this as a good thing. They’re picking and choosing what laws this applies to and what they let slide. This is just the “easy out” that prevents “people like you” from being outraged at the blatant corruption going on.
It wasn’t meant to be insulting.