A court has blocked a "click to cancel" rule that would have made it easier to end unwanted memberships and subscriptions. The rule, introduced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), would have made canceling as easy as signing up in the first place, meaning a simple website button in some cases.

The rule was scheduled to take effect on July 14, 2025, but was blocked by a federal appeals court. The block wasn't based on the measures themselves, but rather the procedural technicalities of the way the FTC made the rule.

Auto-Renewals Restricted

Officially titled the Negative Opinion Rule, the regulations had two main measures. The first was to stop businesses treating the absence of action by a consumer as consent to sign up to an ongoing payment agreement. This included unwanted auto-renewals or free trials which automatically converted into a subscription.

The second measures was that consumers would have to be able to cancel an ongoing payment in the same way as they signed up, and without additional steps or barriers. For example, somebody who signed up online would have to be able to cancel online rather than be forced to phone a call center. (Source: theguardian.com)

The rule was originally scheduled to come into force in May but was delayed to give companies extra time to comply. However, opponents of the rule brought a lawsuit has proven successful.

Procedural Error

The lawsuit argued the FTC had not acted correctly in making the rule because it didn't carry out a preliminary regulatory analysis which aims to balance the benefits for consumers against the burden on businesses.

That's required when the FTC makes a rule which will have an "impact on the US economy" of more than $100 million. The FTC argued that it had determined the impact would be below this figure so the analysis was not needed. The court said the impact would be more than the $100 million and that the failure to do the analysis was so important that the entire rule had to be declared void. (Source: apnews.com)

In theory the FTC could either appeal the case to a higher court or start the rulemaking process from scratch, this time with the impact analysis. However it may instead concentrate on court action against what it considers the most unreasonable behavior.

This includes an ongoing case against Amazon which is accused of (and denies) enrolling people in Prime memberships without clear and meaningful consent, then making it unnecessarily difficult to cancel.

What's Your Opinion?

Procedural issues aside, do you agree with the principle of the rule? Have you ever found it too difficult to cancel a membership? Is it better to make the rules tougher for every business or to go after the worst offenders individually?