Comment by gmd63
5 days ago
I don't buy that argument. The issue is companies deliberately built complexity on top of their existing systems to make it harder to cancel. The added complexity that costs a lot of money to fix is a result of their unfair and deceptive practices.
An enormous amount of deadweight loss would be returned to the economy if they simply implemented a much simpler design of click to cancel and avoided the unfair and deceptive practices in the first place.
Isn't the argument that making it easier to cancel subscriptions means that more customers will cancel and the cumulative effect across the industry will be much more than $100M?
Why would anyone be concerned with the industry vs the economy? Especially when it’s an industry engaged in foul play?
Any dollar “lost” as a result of customers being able to cancel results in customers gaining more money to empower industries that are actually productive.
Obviously I agree with you morally speaking but apparently the law doesn't.
No, I think that the $100M number comes from the cost of implementing the change, not the impact to the impacted companies' bottom line.
I think the other person is right… the term is “economic impact” not “cost to implement”
3 replies →
Sure, and I can make an argument that John's Window Breaking and Repair Services, LLC is performing a public good by stimulating economic activity.
That is a decent argument against the law requiring the analysis, but it is not a good argument that judges should let the FTC violate the law.
YEAH!
NO PART OF THE GOVT SHOULD EVER VIOLATE THE LAW!
YOU TELL 'EM, BUDDY!