On October 16, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a final “click-to-cancel” rule that amends the previous Negative Option Rule to “make it as easy for consumers to cancel their enrollment as it was to sign up.” The Rule also imposes extensive requirements regarding misrepresentations, disclosures, and consent, among others. Most of the provisions will go into effect 180 days after publication in the Federal Register. As of today, the final rule has not yet been published. This final rule is the culmination of a five-year proceeding including the FTC’s issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) in March 2023 and an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in October 2019. We previously analyzed the proposed rule presented in the NPRM.

In response to comments, the FTC made several changes to the final Rule. We have outlined some of the major differences between the proposed and the final Rule below:

  • Misrepresentations. The FTC retained the section of the Rule prohibiting “misrepresentations” about any material fact related to the Negative Option Feature or the underlying good or service. The final rule now includes examples from prior Commission cases setting forth potentially material fact categories, providing additional guidance about the sorts of claims that the FTC might target under this provision. This section goes into effect 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
  • Disclosures. The Rule still requires clear and conspicuous disclosure of all material terms, but no longer requires disclosure of the date or dates that charges will be submitted for payment, which was the subject of comments that calculating this information would be impossible in certain instances. The FTC also modified the requirement to disclose “information necessary for the consumer to cancel” to instead require disclosure of “information necessary for the consumer to find the simple cancellation mechanism.”
  • Billing Information: In response to concerns about disclosure timing where a consumer authorized the seller to store billing information, the Commission clarified that “where a consumer has previously provided account information to the seller and expressly allowed the seller to store that information, the seller must make the required disclosures prior to obtaining the consumer’s consent to use saved account information.”
  • Double opt-in consent. The Commission eliminated the requirement to “obtain the consumer’s unambiguously affirmative consent to the rest of the transaction.” However, the Commission is still requiring that sellers obtain consent to the negative option feature offer “separately from any other portion of the transaction.”
  • Saves. The final Rule eliminates the prohibition on saves, which stated that sellers “must immediately cancel the Negative Option Feature upon request from a consumer, unless the seller obtains the consumer’s unambiguously affirmative consent to receive a Save prior to cancellation.” The FTC indicated it is planning to issue a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this subject.
  • Cancellation “as simple as sign-up.” The final Rule acknowledges that sign-up and cancellation may not always be “perfectly symmetrical,” but should still be similar in terms of “time, burden, expense, and ease of use.” The Commission recognized that consumers may have to “verify or authenticate their identity” or “be asked to confirm their intent to cancel.”
  • Cancellation same medium as sign-up. The Commission retained this requirement but revised the specific requirements for online, phone, and in-person cancellation. For online cancellations, instead of requiring a cancellation method “over the same website or web-based application,” the rule now (1) states that “the simple cancellation mechanism must be easy to find when the consumer seeks to cancel” and (2) prohibits requiring customers to interact with a live agent or chat bot, unless they did so when they signed up.
  • Reminders. The draft provision addressing annual reminders for subscriptions not involving delivery of physical goods has been eliminated from the final rule.

The updated rule was approved by the Commission by a vote of 3-2, with Commissioners Holyoak and Ferguson voting no. Commissioner Slaughter issued a separate statement and Commissioner Holyoak issued a dissenting statement. Commissioner Slaughter’s statement addresses the exclusion of the reminders provision. She asserts that its exclusion comes not from a lack of policy merit but rather the FTC’s cautious approach to its jurisdictional limits and suggests that Congress and state legislatures have an opportunity to take action in this area. Commissioner Holyoak’s statement argues that the new Rule is overly broad and fails to define unfair and deceptive acts with the appropriate level of specificity.

If you have any questions concerning the material discussed in this post, please contact the members of our Advertising and Consumer Protection Investigations practice group.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Alexandra Remick Alexandra Remick

Alexandra Remick is a member of the Advertising and Consumer Protection Investigations Group. Her practice focuses on regulatory and compliance matters related to consumer protection. She has experience advising clients on topics including endorsements, social media influencers, native advertising, automatically renewing subscriptions, consumer…

Alexandra Remick is a member of the Advertising and Consumer Protection Investigations Group. Her practice focuses on regulatory and compliance matters related to consumer protection. She has experience advising clients on topics including endorsements, social media influencers, native advertising, automatically renewing subscriptions, consumer reviews, and claim substantiation in a variety of contexts. She frequently provides advice on specific advertising compliance questions and works with companies on developing internal advertising compliance policies. She has also represented multiple clients in FTC investigations involving consumer protection issues, has conducted regulatory due diligence on multiple transactions, and has drafted comments on multiple rulemakings.

Photo of Laura Kim Laura Kim

Laura Kim draws upon her experience in senior positions at the Federal Trade Commission to advise clients across industries on complex advertising, privacy, and data security matters. She provides practical compliance advice and represents clients in FTC and State AG investigations. Laura advises on…

Laura Kim draws upon her experience in senior positions at the Federal Trade Commission to advise clients across industries on complex advertising, privacy, and data security matters. She provides practical compliance advice and represents clients in FTC and State AG investigations. Laura advises on a wide range of consumer protection issues, including green claims, influencers, native advertising, claim substantiation, Made in USA claims, children’s privacy, subscription auto-renewal marketing, and other digital advertising matters. In addition, Laura actively practices before the NAD, including recent successful resolution of matters for both challengers and advertisers. She is the Chair of Covington’s Advertising and Consumer Protection Investigations Group and participates in the firm’s Internet of Things Initiative.

Laura re-joined Covington after a twelve-year tenure at the FTC, where she served as Assistant Director in two divisions of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, as well as Chief of Staff in the Bureau of Consumer Protection and Attorney Advisor to former Chairman William E. Kovacic. She worked on key FTC Rules and Guides such as the Green Guides, Jewelry Guides, and the Telemarketing Sales Rule. She supervised these and other rule making proceedings and oversaw dozens of the Commission’s investigations and enforcement actions involving compliance with these rules. Laura also supervised compliance monitoring for companies under federal court or Commission order.

Laura also served as Deputy Chief Enforcement Officer at the U.S. Department of Education, where she helped establish a new Enforcement Office within Federal Student Aid. In this role, she managed investigations of higher education institutions and oversaw issuance of fines and adverse actions for institutions in violation of federal student aid regulations. Laura also supervised the borrower defense to repayment division and the Clery campus safety and security division.

Photo of Jehan Patterson Jehan Patterson

Drawing from experience as a senior litigation counsel in the Office of Enforcement at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and in private practice, Jehan Patterson advises and represents clients on consumer protection matters, including issues relating to advertising, data privacy and security…

Drawing from experience as a senior litigation counsel in the Office of Enforcement at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and in private practice, Jehan Patterson advises and represents clients on consumer protection matters, including issues relating to advertising, data privacy and security, and financial services. She has represented banks, non-banks, and individuals in supervisory, enforcement, and rulemaking matters before the CFPB, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (FRB).

While at the Bureau, Jehan investigated numerous providers of consumer financial products and services for violations of federal consumer financial laws and regulations, including the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition against unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices, resulting in entry of administrative consent orders and federal district court judgments. Some of her notable settlements imposed extensive injunctive relief requiring entities to make significant investments in their technology systems and compliance programs to avoid future violations of law. Jehan coordinated on parallel matters with the United States Department of Justice and on enforcement investigations with states Attorneys’ General offices and state banking regulators. Among other matters, she led an investigation of a non-bank that culminated in a settlement joined by the Attorneys General of approximately 42 states and the District of Columbia.

Jehan also litigated on behalf of the Bureau, including representing the Bureau in its first advisory jury trial, obtaining a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to shut down a network of student loan debt relief companies and freeze their assets, and defeating a defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs.