Canceling subscriptions was about to get easier, but a federal court blocked the FTC rule
The Federal Trade Commission's proposed changes, adopted in October, required businesses to obtain a customer's consent before charging for memberships, auto-renewals, and programs linked to free trial offers.
The FTC said at the time that businesses must also disclose when free trials or other promotional offers will end and let customers cancel recurring subscriptions as easily as they started them.
The administration of President Joe Biden included the FTC's proposal as part of its 'Time is Money' initiative, a governmentwide initiative that was announced last year with the aim of cracking down on consumer-related hassles.
The FTC rule was set to go into effect on Monday, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said this week that the FTC made a procedural error by failing to come up with a preliminary regulatory analysis, which is required for rules whose annual impact on the U.S. economy is more than $100 million.
The FTC claimed that it did not have to come up with a preliminary regulatory analysis because it initially determined that the rule's impact on the national economy would be less than $100 million. An administrative law judge decided that the economic impact would be more than the $100 million threshold.
The court decided to vacate the rule.
'While we certainly do not endorse the use of unfair and deceptive practices in negative option marketing, the procedural deficiencies of the Commission's rulemaking process are fatal here,' the court wrote.
The FTC declined to comment on Wednesday.
The agency is currently moving forward with its preparations for a trial involving Amazon's Prime program. The trial stems from a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit that accused Amazon of enrolling consumers in its Prime program without their consent and making it difficult for them to cancel their subscriptions.
The trial is expected to take place next year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
10 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's New Order Hits College Football 'Salaries'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Trump on Thursday signed an Executive Order that seeks to ban so-called "pay-for-play" payments to college athletes, which critics argue are de facto salaries, arguing college sports in the U.S. is "under unprecedented threat." Why It Matters In 2021 the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) can't impose limits on the education-related benefits available to college athletes who play in Division I basketball and football. Shortly afterward the NCAA introduced a new interim policy allowing college athletes to benefit financially from their name, image or likeness (NIL) such as through merchandising and brand endorsements. Direct salaries remain banned and the exact rules vary between states. Critics argued the new system has resulted in some players receiving de facto salaries via NIL payments, to the benefit of the wealthiest university teams, while supporters argue the move was needed to avoid exploitation. What To Know Trump's executive order instructs the Secretary of Education, together with the Attorney General, Health and Human Services Secretary, and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chair, to formulate a plan within 30 days to achieve a number of objectives including the elimination of "pay-for-play inducements" in college sports. The president specified that Attorney General Pam Bondi and FTC chair Lina Khan should use "litigation, guidelines, policies, or other actions, as appropriate" to achieve this objective. Within 60 days of the Executive Order being issued the Attorney General and FTC chair are also instructed to "review, and as necessary revise" their proposals including regarding federal legal action. Jeremiah Smith #4 of the Ohio State Buckeyes celebrates after scoring a touchdown against the Notre Dame Fighting Irish during the second quarter in the 2025 CFP National Championship at the Mercedes-Benz Stadium on January... Jeremiah Smith #4 of the Ohio State Buckeyes celebrates after scoring a touchdown against the Notre Dame Fighting Irish during the second quarter in the 2025 CFP National Championship at the Mercedes-Benz Stadium on January 20, 2025 in Atlanta, Georgia. More Todd Kirkland/GETTY Trump's order also states it is "the policy of the executive branch that opportunities for scholarships and collegiate athletic competition in women's and nonrevenue sports must be preserved and, where possible, expanded" from the 2025-6 athletic season onward. Collegiate athletic departments which had revenue greater than $125,000,000 during the 2024-5 season are instructed to "provide more scholarship opportunities in nonrevenue sports" next season. Those with a revenue of at least $50,000,000 must "provide at least as many scholarship opportunities in nonrevenue sports as provided during the 2024-2025 athletic season." In February 2025 Trump signed an executive order banning transgender athletes from competing in female college sports, and stripping federal funding from any universities that failed to comply. What People Are Saying In his Executive Order Trump said: "The future of college sports is under unprecedented threat. Waves of recent litigation against collegiate athletics governing rules have eliminated limits on athlete compensation, pay-for-play recruiting inducements, and transfers between universities, unleashing a sea change that threatens the viability of college sports. "While changes providing some increased benefits and flexibility to student-athletes were overdue and should be maintained, the inability to maintain reasonable rules and guardrails is a mortal threat to most college sports." Trump's move was welcomed by NCAA President Charlie Baker who said: "The NCAA is making positive changes for student-athletes and confronting many challenges facing college sports by mandating health and wellness benefits and guaranteeing scholarships, but there are some threats to college sports that federal legislation can effectively address and the Association is advocating with student-athletes and their schools for a bipartisan solution with Congress and the Administration. "The Association appreciates the Trump Administration's focus on the life-changing opportunities college sports provides millions of young people and we look forward to working with student-athletes, a bipartisan coalition in Congress and the Trump Administration to enhance college sports for years to come." What Happens Next It remains to be seen exactly what measures the various federal agencies will suggest to achieve Trump's policy objectives in college sports over the next 30 days. Payment for college athletes is likely to remain controversial considering the enormous viewing and attendance figures enjoyed by college football and basketball in particular.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump targets disaster mitigation funds, raising risks in future crises
The Trump administration appears to be drastically reducing the federal funds it offers to help states head off future natural disasters, a decision that could come under fire as the White House faces scrutiny over its response to Texas's deadly flooding. The administration has responded to criticism of its handling of the Texas floods with claims that it is 'remaking' the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to better help states. But after the deadly Independence Day floods, the administration declined to provide Texas with access to a tranche of FEMA funds aimed at heading off the next disaster — money intended to pay for things such as warning systems, tornado shelters and anti-flood measures. A review of federal documents by The Hill shows that the administration denied such 'hazard mitigation' funds to states after 16 out of 18 flood disasters during the Trump presidency, with both of the approvals coming before mid-March. In May, children in a Missouri elementary school sheltered from a tornado that shattered windows and ripped gutters off the building inside a safe room purchased with hazard mitigation money issued after the deadly 2011 Joplin tornado. Though the Trump administration approved Missouri's disaster declaration, it refused the hazard mitigation funds the state requested to buy generators and more outdoor warning sirens, state officials told The Hill. Missouri is appealing that decision. In neighboring Oklahoma, the Biden administration had in November approved hazard mitigation funding for wildfires and straight-line winds. But even as those funds went out, more wildfires, driven by straight-line winds, were raging across the Sooner State. President Trump issued a disaster declaration on the last day of the weeklong emergency — but denied hazard mitigation funding. It was the first time in at least 15 years that Oklahoma wasn't approved for requested hazard mitigation, according to state emergency management officials. This pivot — which breaks longstanding federal precedent — comes amid steep Trump cuts to FEMA, which he has also talked about eliminating entirely, as well as cuts to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the federal forecasting and research apparatus. Veterans of these agencies told The Hill there has been appetite for reform and arguments made for shifting more responsibility to the states. 'But this is like, 'You need an appendectomy? Well, let's get the garden shears,'' said Candace Valenzuela, former HUD director for the region that includes Texas. Experts say cutting off hazard mitigation funds after floods marks a major shift in federal priorities. FEMA has traditionally given states 15 to 20 percent of the disaster response budget to help prevent future catastrophes — spending the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found pays for itself by at least $2 saved for every $1 invested. That return is even greater for flood mitigation, where the CBO found every dollar spent yields $5 to $8 in avoided damages. And that benefit is growing. Over the past decade, floods have cost the U.S. an average of $46 billion a year — or $135 annually per American — a figure expected to rise to as much as $60 billion by midcentury as the atmosphere warms and holds more moisture. A wetter atmosphere, in turn, means more extreme rainfall such as the deluge that hit Central Texas earlier this month. Former meteorologist and National Weather Service (NWS) union legislative director John Sokich said he's seen more such downpours 'in the last 10 years than I saw in my 35 years before that.' Those worsening events make proactive spending even more effective, said Chad Berginnis, head of the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM). 'If you have more and more extreme events in the area you've mitigated, your benefits come faster,' Berginnis said. The administration has also frozen a major flood mitigation program and clawed back funds from flood control projects nationwide that were already underway. Last week, a coalition of 20 blue and purple states sued the federal government over the clawback of funding for the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, which began under the first Trump administration. Money pulled from BRIC included funds that would have paid for an Oklahoma flood warning system, a North Texas flood control dam and $1 billion in flood control projects across the Chesapeake Bay. 'The impact of the shutdown has been devastating,' the states wrote in their suit. 'Communities across the country are being forced to delay, scale back, or cancel hundreds of mitigation projects,' many of which had cost millions and had taken years to plan and permit. 'In the meantime, Americans across the country face a higher risk of harm from natural disasters,' the suit added. The states also argued the pullback was illegal since Congress made forward-looking mitigation one of FEMA's core responsibilities in 1997. The administration did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the shift in FEMA strategy. Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin has said the administration is 'leading a historic, first-of-its-kind approach to disaster funding.' That approach, she said, means 'providing upfront recovery support — moving money faster than ever and jump starting recovery,' while pivoting away from 'bloated, D.C.-centric dead weight to a lean, deployable disaster force' that shifts responsibility to the states. But emergency managers say the administration is cutting off vital resources that states and municipalities need to avoid financial ruin from worsening disasters. 'Mitigation is a lifeline,' Berginnis said. 'It's a way out of a really bad cycle of disaster, damage, repair, damage that a lot of folks of modest means really can't escape.' As a state emergency manager in Ohio, he said he saw FEMA hazard mitigation funding change lives by allowing the state to buy out flood-prone properties. By contrast, FEMA's 'individual assistance' programs, which the administration continues to offer, only cover structural repairs, often for homes likely to flood again. 'When I presented a check to buy out his property, the owner said, 'This is the only chance for me and my family to get our lives back to normal,'' Berginnis recalled. In addition to dramatically cutting back funds to help states and municipalities prepare for the next flood, the administration also quietly changed FEMA standards to make it easier to build in floodplains. One thing amplifying flood danger in the United States is that the nation's builders, insurers and emergency managers often don't even know how bad the flood risk is because it has never been assessed for most of the country's creeks and streams. The deadly July 4 flooding that swept away more than two dozen children and counselors from Camp Mystic in Hunt, Texas, for example, came when Cypress Creek burst its banks. That risk was obscured, Berginnis noted, because like two-thirds of similar waterways around the country, its floodways have never been mapped. ASFPM has estimated that a complete re-mapping project would cost about $3 billion to $12 billion — just 3 to 25 percent the annual cost of flood repair, which they say that mapping would reduce. Once that project was done, they estimated, keeping it up to date would cost $100 million to $500 million per year, or between 0.2 and 1 percent of current annual spending on flood damages. This is not money that the current administration seems eager to spend, however. Instead, it is moving away from spending on forecasting or research — including into how to best warn communities when deadly threats are coming their way. DOGE cuts have disrupted a NWS reorganization meant to centralize operations so field offices could spend more time helping local emergency managers interpret often-ambiguous forecasts, agency veterans said. That program had aimed to address the challenge that emergencies like the one in Kerr County are low-likelihood but high-impact, which can breed complacency until it's too late. Rather than pivot, NWS is 'trying to keep its head above water,' said Alan Gerard, a former NOAA warnings expert who took a buyout this year. He warned that other cuts threaten research to understand the novel weather patterns of a hotter planet — research that could one day give communities like Kerr County six hours' warning before fast-moving storms. 'That stuff is still years away — both from the physical science aspect, and the social science of helping people understand it,' he said. If the Trump cuts go through, he said, 'that would all stop.'
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Crypto lobbyists mine for influence under Trump 2.0
The crypto lobby rapidly expanded its presence on Capitol Hill in recent months as lawmakers took their first bite at legislation to regulate digital currency, according to disclosures filed this week. At least 27 crypto companies or advocates filed their first-ever lobbying disclosures this year across some 20 firms, reflecting an increasing appetite for influence in a more crypto-friendly Washington. The newcomers originate from all corners of the industry. There's betting website Polymarket, a gaming company that created an NFT version of the White House Easter egg hunt, and a Seychelles-based exchange that cannot operate in the U.S. market due to a federal money laundering settlement. Together, they spent nearly $2.8 million from April 1 to June 30 on lobbying landmark legislation promoting digital assets to the Treasury Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a host of other issues relevant to blockchain infrastructure — an increasingly sprawling ecosystem that some hope could one day be as ubiquitous as the internet. The push has paid off for crypto so far. The GENIUS Act, a bill with bipartisan support signed by President Trump last Friday, has been regarded as the government's 'seal of approval' on the industry. The law sets up a regulatory framework for stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency that is theoretically pegged to the U.S. dollar or another reference asset. The House also advanced several other landmark bills during its monumental 'crypto week,' which featured high-profile lobbying stunts such as vending machines around the Capitol and the National Mall with customized chocolate bars urging 'yes' votes, bankrolled by the crypto exchange Coinbase. Lobbying expenses that week were not covered in the second quarter disclosures. At least 73 companies or associations focused on crypto disclosed federal lobbying activities, to the tune of about $11.4 million — a total that doesn't include spending from investment firms like Andreessen Horowitz ($790,000) or Blackrock ($810,000) that have substantial crypto interests but also lobbied on a suite of other financial regulation issues. Kucoin, a cryptocurrency exchange based in the Seychelles, spent the most on lobbying of any of the new companies, doling out $1 million in the second quarter on issues 'related to crypto legislation and regulations' — more than industry giants like Coinbase ($970,000), ($430,000) and the Blockchain Association ($490,000), which represents more than 100 crypto companies. But Kucoin isn't even allowed to operate in the U.S. market for at least the next two years. In January, the exchange pleaded guilty for failing to properly vet its users in what the Justice Department said was a violation of federal anti-money laundering regulations. Kucoin also agreed to pay a fine of $300 million. Still, the broader industry's enthusiasm coincides with a historically crypto-friendly White House — a marked change from the often -wary Biden administration. Trump, himself once a crypto skeptic, now owns a spread of tokens and cryptocurrencies, which Forbes estimated in June accounted for about 60 percent of his personal net worth. Crypto executives who packed the White House for the GENIUS Act signing earlier this week hailed the moment as 'surreal' and 'historic.' 'The overarching problem that the industry has faced in the last eight years is not, I would say, the inability to build things, but rather the inability to understand how what is being built interacts with existing law and regulation,' said Miller Whitehouse-Levine, the CEO of the Solana Policy Institute, which advocates for decentralized networks built on blockchain technology. Solana, which spent $560,000 this quarter, is one of several blockchain platforms on which users can build all sorts of software: a boba rewards program, a ticketing platform, and a 5G cell network are recent examples. There's also cryptocurrency hosted on the framework, including $TRUMP and $MELANIA, so-called meme coins owned by the president's family. Some crypto firms are still focused on currency issues; Bitdeer Technologies, which operates computing facilities that mine Bitcoin, spent $250,000. But many of the companies making their voices heard in Washington want to use cryptocurrencies, or blockchain, their underlying technology, for a host of other financial products and technologies. Polymarket, filing under the name Blockratize, is new to lobbying this year and spent $90,000 last quarter. The company allows users to make bets using cryptocurrency on basically any event: the 2028 presidential election, whether President Trump will pardon Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, or even the price of other cryptocurrencies in the near future. Gala Games, which paid out $50,000 in lobbying, helped sponsor the White House's annual Easter Egg Roll — a partnership that included their development of an online Easter egg hunt where users could collect NFT eggs. The company hosts online games that pay out crypto tokens as rewards. After the successful passage of the GENIUS Act, crypto companies are now hoping that the Senate will next advance the CLARITY Act, which would stake out a blueprint for how federal regulatory agencies will oversee crypto firms. A bill banning the Federal Reserve from issuing a cryptocurrency, seen as a competitor to stablecoins, has also attracted support from the sector. But questions linger about the future of the famously volatile industry, and Whitehouse-Levine said he is worried about another sea change after the 'extreme whiplash' between presidential administrations. 'The pendulum, you know, I think was at one extreme and is now swung in the opposite direction,' he said. 'My greatest fear is the possibility … of that pendulum swinging back to the same extent it just swung.'
