Well it’s good to know that the courts are willing to tell the executive they can’t do things. Shame about it only applying when the feds are helping ordinary people
This is the FTC’s rule, but nothing prevents each and every state from implementing a law to do the exact same thing, except slightly differently than every other state, making it extremely costly for the companies to implement.
The problem with subscription services is that it’s fairly easy to argue it’s interstate commerce that states don’t have jurisdiction over.
That would also invalidate all of the porn site ID laws.
I’d expect the Spanish inquisition long before I expect the government to do something good for the people.
We literally cannot have even one nice thing in this country. You best start believin’ in cyberpunk dystopias… because you’re in one.
Most likely I’ll have to snail mail an unsubscribe to subscription with a check won’t I?
I wonder if replying to a “do not reply” email 1000 times a second would have any ill effect in their servers.
Likely not. Many times the address doesn’t even have a mailbox, so it immediately bounces. If you reply enough to actually have an effect, you’ll either be blacklisted, or reported as spam.
Especially with all the talk of Transhumanism getting more common
Deep cut
what a shocker trump fucking over everyone again
Doesn’t that ONLY apply to whatever circuit it’s in?
the FTC had failed to follow correct procedures and conduct an analysis before issuing the rule
The FTC is free to issue this again. They need to do it in accordance with the law next time.
The current ftc doing something constructive?
Most likely situation is that this will not happen now, or years from now
industry associations and individual businesses […] argued the FTC had failed to follow correct procedures and conduct an analysis before issuing the rule. The judge panel has agreed with them.
Three judges — two appointed by President Trump, one by President George H. W. Bush — found that the FTC’s rulemaking process was flawed and did not include early analysis of the rule’s possible economic effects. [1]
“the law”
This was their last chance to do anything before they’re gutted. Guess we deal with the wave of bullshit now.
So per the latest Supreme Court ruling, this only applies to that explicit case then, right?.. Right?
Just for that I’m going to put things in my Amazon and eBay accounts and just keep swapping stuff without buying anything for weeks at a time.
They doing any of this analysis on anything the current administration is up to?
