Comment by drweevil
6 days ago
>”failed to conduct a preliminary analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule”
Let me get this straight. The rule is declared void because the FTC failed to consider the cost to business to correct unfair and predatory business practices. Courts to consumers: Heads we win, tails you lose.
They get to create rules despite being unelected. The catch is they have to follow the procedure for rule making in the law that grants them this power. Even if the rule is a very good idea.
I understand the justification being used. But it's bogus. These corporations are engaging in theft from the general public, using deceptive business practices that organized crime would be proud of. The claim made by the complainants is that stopping them from robbing consumers would cost them more than $100M, which, if you include their ill-gotten gains, is probably true. IOW, "it would cost us too much to stop robbing people, therefore we shouldn't be forced to stop." The FTC rule was not ending a good-faith business practice. And the job of the courts is not sanctioning theft. Those are the main objections here.
As for the "despite being unelected" dig, let's apply this standard fairly. The courts are also unelected, as are the businesses involved.