Comment by pedalpete
5 days ago
If this $100 million in impact rule is the reason for the judgement, wouldn't that suggest that a scam that takes in more than $100 million would be protected?
That's essentially what these businesses are doing. They're taking money from people who either don't want their product, or didn't realize that they'd be charged continuously.
Just yesterday I cancelled a service, they made it very simple, until I read the very small print that said "this service is paused for 1 month". I didn't want a pause, I wanted a cancel, but how many people are being caught out by this.
I emailed them, and the CEO replied that they are changing this policy. I'll try to follow up on that in a month, but I'm not believing this on face value.
> If this $100 million in impact rule is the reason for the judgement, wouldn't that suggest that a scam that takes in more than $100 million would be protected?
No.
The $100 million rule doesn't say that things with more than $100 million in impact cannot be regulated. It just says that more analysis is required when regulating such things.
Note especially that the hundred million dollar rule is about the amount of impact _of the new rules_, not the impact of the fraud that they’re trying to deter. The extra steps that they must go through are all about finding alternative rules that would be cheaper to implement, using suggestions from the public and the regulated industry.