US court strikes down 'click-to-cancel' rule designed to make unsubscribing easy

Sometimes the unsubscribe method is used to confirm an actual person.

Then the email address gets noted and shipped off to others for further email / spam / phishing / etc.

This works through X-List-Unsubscribe or similar headers. Companies making unsubscribing difficult will definitely not add or keep such header on their email messages now.

> might be a better link

It's definitely a much better link.

It actually describes what the ftc did wrong and even links to the decision. The guardian link doesn't do either, and so doesn't actually provide for meaningful discussion.

We moved the comments to the submission with this URL, thanks!

It's sad that this is almost a guarantee. Our peers are working on code at this very minute to annoy and frustrate us, and they seemingly have no problem with it.

These kinds of swipes are lame. They play to tired stereotypes that live in the minds of some but for everyone else they just make threads a bit more miserable.

The guidelines ask us to avoid comments like this:

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Don't give them ideas!!!!

But in this vein, maybe if you can get the chatbot to disgorge its secret then you get to unsubscribe.

I hear disputing credit card transactions are a thing, though.

and other HN readers working on LLM powered bots to write the replies

I’m pretty sure that it’s already a long-standing rule that unsubscribe must be available within 2 click (one click on the email, one click on the ensuing website). How often this is enforced idk

Fortunately some other HN readers are currently working on a browser extension to get a local LLM to argue with the enterprise LLM until it gives you your money back.

There was an ad here for jobs at a company building AI powered debt collection robo calls. So this can’t be far off.

I thought the Anthropic chat agent implementation was actually quite good at redirecting me to a human.

Being trapped in a kafkaesque nightmare isn't fiction anymore, it's late-stage capitalism's fetish.

I have been getting charged $7.99 from Google every month for a year. I don't know what the charge is and it isn't linked to any of my accounts. I have contacted every single possible Google support line that exists to the public. They refuse to provide any means for me to show them I own this credit card and that I want the charges stopped. But of course, my credit card company also has no human support rep, and their automated support line tells me I need to talk to the merchant. So I cancelled the card. Guess what? They're still processing the fees from the old card, like it never cancelled.

>the USA's supreme court

OK, but right now we are talking about a decision by a US federal appeals court.

>“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,”

Sounds like they have no issue with the rule itself, only with the fact that it was passed by bureaucratic fiat.

not all people of course, just say 99%... the bottom 99%

There are two types of people:

Those who think the Supreme court should rule based on the effect on people.

And those who think the Supreme court should rule based on the laws as written.