Comcast, Charter Sue FTC Over Efforts To Make Canceling Services Easier

from the it-is-my-god-given-right-to-be-fraudulent dept

Earlier this month the FTC announced it was modifying some existing rules to crack down on companies that make it extremely difficult to cancel services. The agency’s revamp of its 1973 “Negative Option Rule” requires companies be completely transparent about the limitations of deals and promotions, requires consumers actively consent to having read terms and deal restrictions, and generally makes cancelling a service as easy as signing up.

So of course, cable and media giants like Comcast and Charter, who’ve built an entire industry on being overtly hostile to consumers, are suing.

Under the banner of the NCTA (The Internet & Television Association), Comcast and Charter filed a lawsuit late last week in the Republican-heavy 5th circuit, claiming the new rules are “arbitrary,” “onerous,” “capricious,” and an abuse of the industry’s existing authority. The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) (with members ranging from Disney to Google) also joined the lawsuit.

Corporate members of most of these organizations have a long, proud history of misleading promotions and making it difficult to cancel services. The Wall Street Journal, for example, historically made it annoyingly difficult to cancel digital subscriptions. And telecoms, of course, have historically made misleading their customers via fine print a high art form.

Kind of like hidden and misleading fees, we’ve cultivated a U.S. business environment where being a misleading asshole to the consumer is simply viewed as a sort of business creativity, not the fraud it actually is. That (plus corruption) has historically resulted in a feckless regulatory environment where this stuff is only fecklessly and inconsistently enforced. Usually with piddly fines and wrist slaps.

Telecoms have always been at the forefront of insisting that any effort to change this paradigm is regulatory over-reach. Thanks to recent Supreme Court rulings like Loper Bright (specifically designed to turn U.S. regulators into the policy equivalent of decorative gourds), they have more legal leverage than ever to crush corporate oversight with the help of a very broken and corrupt MAGA-heavy court system.

The flimsy logic pushed by the extraction class to justify the dismantling of Chevron deference was that feckless U.S. regulators (who again, in reality, can rarely take action against the worst offenders on a good day) had somehow gotten too bold, and that recent Supreme decisions had rebalanced things so that “out of control” regulators can’t act without the specific approval of Congress.

But corporations didn’t lobby the unelected Supreme Court because they were just honestly concerned about the balance of policy power among “unelected bureaucrats.” They did it because they know they’ve already lobbied Congress into absolute, corrupt dysfunction on nearly all meaningful reform and corporate oversight (guns, health, whatever). Now they’re taking aim at the already shaky authority of federal U.S. regulators. Once they’re done there, they’ll take aim at state consumer protection power.

Companies like Comcast envision a world in which there’s really no functional state or federal corporate oversight whatsoever. It really doesn’t matter the subject (net neutrality, transparency label requirements, privacy, efforts to stop racial discrimination in broadband deployment, annoying cancellations). They sue claiming regulatory overreach. And thanks to the corrupt Supreme Court and decades of demonization of the regulatory state as uniquely and purely harmful, corporations have a better chance of winning than ever.

And of course this isn’t just happening in telecom and media. It’s happening across every industry that touches every aspect of U.S. life, often in potentially deadly or hazardous ways (see this ProPublica report). Having federal regulators that can’t do anything without it being dismantled by the whims of an errant, logic-optional 5th Circuit Republican Judge will cause endless legal chaos and grind most meaningful reform to a halt, just the way industry designed it.

It’s the culmination of a fifty-year strategy by large corporations, it won’t be in any way subtle, and annoying cancellation obstacles will likely be the least of our worries as the chaos mounts in the years to come. Court reform (Supreme Court term limits and court expansion chief among them) is utterly essential, unless we really do want a world in which corporate power is the only power that matters.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,
Companies: charter, comcast, esa, iab, ncta

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Comcast, Charter Sue FTC Over Efforts To Make Canceling Services Easier”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
24 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

“the culmination of a fifty-year strategy by large corporations”

More precisely, it’s the inevitable consequence of capitalism. The extraction class (as the author so succinctly describes it) eventually becomes indistinguishable from government because, by definition, their interests are perfectly aligned.

Nathan F (profile) says:

So what it sounds like is I need to get a couple of low limit credit cards and use those for subscription based services that make it a pain in the ass to cancel. Keep the same types of services grouped together like streaming services, news sites etc. Then when they give me grief about canceling or make it hard as hell, call the credit card company and cancel THAT specific card and when they send me a new one update the card information on the services I want to keep.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Most credit card companies now allow you to make a “virtual” credit card with a custom credit limit that can be deactivated at any time. Make one “card” per streaming service and now you can cancel anything with a few clicks (exact amount of clicks depends on your credit card company).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Most credit card companies now allow you to make a “virtual” credit card

Most? Really? I doubt that’s true even in the USA, and I’m pretty sure it’s false when talking about the entire world of credit card companies.

David E. Nelson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Except it does not work that way. Cancelling a credit card you used to sign up for a subscription does not cancel said subscription, and will only result in collection notices, damage to your credit score, and eventually a court judgement seizing your assets to pay off your accumulated subscription debt, and said subscription will remain active afterwards. And the service provider will know exactly whom to go after, because every subscription requires a billing address.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

damage to your credit score

People waste way too much mental effort worrying about what some computer algorithm thinks about them.

eventually a court judgement seizing your assets to pay off your accumulated subscription debt, and said subscription will remain active afterwards

Does this actually happen? Legally, sure, it could, but is it common for companies to take $50/month debts to that stage? And to keep servicing subscriptions even after selling off the debt? It used to be that people would actually have their service cut off for non-payment.

Your overall point is reasonable, though: this is definitely the wrong way to do things. Those disposable card numbers are good for peace of mind, but one still needs to actually cancel. Do it in writing—fax it, (e-)mail it, or drop it at an official service center—and keep records. Avoid any ambiguity: say outright that it’s a notice of cancelation, not that you “want to” cancel or some such thing.

Anonymous Coward says:

I went over to see what right-wing organization NetChoice had to say about the Negative Option Rule as well, and it reeks of Trumpist garbage.

Why do people trust organizations like NetChoice, again? They are Republican through and through, and it sucks that they’re going to keep getting the credit for their victory against Paxton and other losers when on other issues, they will gladly march lock-step with Paxton et al.

Anonymous Coward says:

I don’t see how, “If we let customers easily cancel our service, it will hurt our business!” is anything other than a glaringly obvious admission that your service sucks….

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“i’m starting to think that you new crop of whoevers are equally annoying.”

Don’t worry, they will be gone in a week ’cause putin will stop paying them.

Bruce C. says:

Unelected Bureaucrats...

Whenever someone raises the “unelected bureaucrats” as an issue, it’s almost always a straw-man. The “bureaucrats” are either appointees nominated by the (elected) President and approved by the (elected) Senate, or they are civil service employees and have to have actual expertise at their job — unlike elected officials, who just have to be popular enough to win an election.

The main scenario where “unelected bureaucrats” are actually an issue is where the regulatory agency has been captured by an interest group and panders to the interests of that group. So to have the NCTA complain about the “unelected” bureaucrats of the FCC is painfully disingenuous since the FCC bends over to the NCTA almost as badly as the FDA does to big pharma and big agri.

dickeyrat says:

Bezos’ strategy is simply to make nice for fat trump, so as not to be sent to Guantanamo, where his godzillions of billions would probably be useless. Remember, this is fat trump’s Amerika; also Putin’s, by association. We only get to live in it (perhaps).

1f92e5 (profile) says:

Techdirt too

Ok, but how do I cancel my Techdirt Watercooler subscription? I subscribed but I can’t even join the Discord. I tried the Contact Us form multiple times but I received no reply. And now there’s no way to cancel my subscription??

Leave a Reply to David E. Nelson Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt needs your support! Get the first Techdirt Commemorative Coin with donations of $100
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...