Comment by jordanb
5 days ago
There is a new FTC administration.
I interpret this as being the incoming FTC wanted to kill this but not withdrawal (due to bad optics).
They wanted to lose the case and did so by changing a judgment they controlled so that the rule could fail a legal procedural challenge.
It better fits the facts that the incoming FTC wants this, but they want to do the job right. At least some of the incoming FTC was in place when they rule was passed in the first place and their statements then say they wanted the rule but they wanted the correct procedures done so that it would stand up in court.
If they wanted to change how they implement the rule they could have withdrawn it rather than continue to an adverse judgement in court.
Basically the FTC is required to go through a lengthy (probably multi-year) impact analysis if they determine that the rule will cause more than $100 million in impact to the US economy.
The previous administration determined that this rule would not meet the threshold, allowing quick implementation. The current administration then said "actually we think this would meet the threshold" giving the court an excuse to strike the rule down.
If the trump administration is correct that trapping people in gotya-contracts by making it difficult to cancel really constitutes $100 million of economic activity in the US, I think that says that there's something truly rotten about the basis of our economy.
You would have attacked them for withdrawing the rule as well. You have setup a can't win situation and then are attacking someone for losing.
If Liberals really wanted this rule they would have followed the law. Evidence is the conservatives when this was passed objected because the law was not being followed. They were then left in this can't win situation.
1 reply →