FTC Pushes Back Enforcement of Click-to-Cancel Rule
On Friday, the Federal Trade Commission voted unanimously to delay enforcement of the so-called “click-to-cancel” rule, a regulation designed to make it as simple for consumers to cancel subscriptions as it is to sign up.
Originally proposed in 2023, the rule targets companies that offer easy one click signups for subscriptions. Think streaming platforms, magazines, or gym memberships. While burying cancellation behind long wait times, obscure forms, or phone calls that seem to go in circles. The rule intends to close that loophole by requiring that cancellation be just as straightforward as the initial purchase.
According to the FTC, the rule technically went into effect back in January. Enforcement was initially set for May 14, but that deadline has now been extended by another 60 days to July 14. The commission cited the burden on businesses as the primary reason for the delay.
"After reassessing the challenges that companies would face in complying by this date, we found the original window did not account for how complex full compliance might be," the FTC said in a public statement.
The commission’s vote was 3 to 0. Typically, the FTC has five commissioners. But earlier this year, President Donald Trump dismissed the two Democratic members of the commission. Both have since filed a lawsuit arguing that their termination violated Supreme Court precedent, which says FTC commissioners cannot be fired without cause. As of now, the agency is operating with only the three Republican appointed commissioners.
Despite the delay, the FTC insists it will begin enforcement in July, at which point all affected companies are expected to comply.
At first glance, this might sound like a minor procedural delay. But the timing and the framing raise some deeper questions. Most Americans would probably agree that if a company can lure you into a subscription in five seconds, they should not require a phone call during business hours to let you out of it. The click to cancel rule was meant to protect consumers from exactly this kind of friction. Yet somehow, even this modest protection is being nudged back again.
The Daily Caller, typically supportive of deregulation, recently acknowledged that predatory subscription practices have become a bipartisan concern, particularly for military families and the elderly. And a Heritage Foundation policy brief from last year even noted that deceptive billing and confusing opt outs "weaken trust in market freedom."
So if everyone agrees this kind of thing is a problem, why is fixing it still on hold?
It is hard not to notice a pattern here. Everyday people, folks juggling jobs, bills, and their kids' swim practice, are being told to wait, while companies are given more time to adjust. Meanwhile, the process of cancellation remains just difficult enough to keep revenue flowing a little longer. And it is worth asking, if the system always seems to bend in favor of delay for the powerful and patience from the rest of us, maybe the incentives are working exactly as designed.
What are we really prioritizing? Convenience for the public or continuity for corporate margins? It is a question worth sitting with, especially when the answer keeps arriving in fine print.