Business

Commentary: How Big Business killed the 'click-to-cancel' FTC rule, which would have saved consumers billions

Published

12 months ago

July 11, 2025

Commentary: How Big Business killed the 'click-to-cancel' FTC rule, which would have saved consumers billions

When consumers are asked to identify their most frustrating interaction with businesses, the obstacles to canceling an automatically-renewing service invariably rank high.

Some companies require cancellations to be done by phone, or even in person. Even finding a cancellation option on a merchant’s website can be daunting. Cancellation can require multiple steps online, or waiting for hours on hold — before a call just gets dropped without warning.

Millions of consumers have ended up paying unwittingly for services or goods they no longer want or need, sometimes for years.

So unsurprisingly, the Federal Trade Commission last year finalized a “click to cancel” rule, requiring that it be as easy to cancel a recurrent subscription as it is to sign up.

Everything wants to be a subscription now. Firms have identified this as a key revenue source.

— Ex-FTC Chair Lina Khan

Also unsurprisingly, the rule came under immediate attack from Big Business, via a federal lawsuit filed last year by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business lobbies.

Possibly most unsurprisingly, a three-judge appeals court panel in St. Louis (two appointed by Trump and one by George H.W. Bush) threw out the rule on Tuesday — less than a week before it was to take effect and after more than five years of painstaking administrative and regulatory work — on a legal technicality.

Whether the rule will be resurrected by today’s FTC is unclear; the commission told me by email it’s still “considering our options.” The FTC’s two GOP commissioners — including Andrew Ferguson, who was elevated to the chairmanship by Donald Trump in January — dissented in the 3-2 vote last year to make the rule final. Ferguson succeeded Biden appointee Lina Khan, who told podcaster Pablo Torre last month that the rule had “enormous support” from the public.

The commission has sued several companies over their automatically-renewing subscription services, including Amazon, Adobe and Uber, which it sued as recently as April. Those cases are pending.

In announcing the Uber lawsuit, Ferguson observed that “Americans are tired of getting signed up for unwanted subscriptions that seem impossible to cancel” and said the commission “is fighting back on behalf of the American people.”

Before delving more deeply into the court’s ruling, here’s some background on why the rule was drafted in the first place.

Its target was “negative option” programs, in which businesses assume customers have consented for automatic renewals unless the customers explicitly cancel. These programs were pioneered by book-of-the-month clubs and similar others, which delivered merchandise to members unless the members told them to skip their monthly offerings.

When the FTC first moved against this practice with a 1973 rule, its quarries were 72 book clubs and four record clubs. The practice mushroomed, especially during the pandemic, when people signed up for automatic deliveries of goods or streamed entertainment so they wouldn’t have to leave the house.

By 2022, businesses were making a mint from auto-renewals, relying on “lapses in consumer memory and on a lack of fluency with technology,” as 11 law professors told the appeals judges in a friend-of-the-court brief.

Seniors who forget what they have signed up for and can’t easily navigate online procedures and parents of young children who get snared into signing up for subscriptions tend to be the most common victims.

Opinion polls revealed that more than half of all consumers had faced unwanted charges at some point from these programs. Almost three-quarters of respondents to a survey by JPMorgan Chase said they were wasting more than $50 a month on automatic payments for goods or services they no longer needed. A cottage industry of firms purporting to help consumers track down their forgotten subscriptions sprung up — typically operating on the same subscription model.

Think all this was accidental? Think again.

When the FTC started investigating negative option programs, “we were stunned to see just how deliberate a business strategy it is,” Khan, who oversaw the regulation’s development, told Torre.

In 2019, the FTC began working on expanding its 1973 regulation of book clubs to cover all forms of negative option marketing and published a final rule last November. The rule required businesses to clearly disclose all costs and terms of their programs, to obtain explicit enrollment consent from customers and to provide a means of cancellation that is “at least as easy to use” as signing up. In other words, if it took two clicks to sign up, it would have to take no more than two to cancel.

In a parallel effort, in 2023, the FTC sued Amazon over the enrollment and cancellation procedures for its Prime memberships, which afford enrollees discounted shipping fees and access to Amazon’s video and music streaming services for annual or monthly fees.

The agency asserted that the giant online retailer had “knowingly duped millions of consumers into unknowingly enrolling in Amazon Prime” and “knowingly complicated the cancellation process for Prime subscribers who sought to end their membership.”

Amazon enticed nonmember customers into signing up for Prime by showering them with repeated come-ons while they tried to finalize a purchase, the FTC said. Some of these messages, the FTC said, obscured that customers who responded to seemingly free offers were actually signing up for Prime.

After the FTC told Amazon it was investigating its approach, the company made the signup process more transparent. The agency asserted, however, that even after internal analyses showed Amazon executives that having customers “sign up without knowing they did” was a major “customer problem,” higher-ups pushed back against efforts to clarify the sign-up process online.

The reason, the agency said, is that the “clarity improvements” drove subscription numbers down. Prime executives ultimately “pulled the plug” on the changes, the FTC said.

Perhaps more frustrating for consumers was what the FTC labeled the “labyrinthine” procedure to cancel Prime memberships. This was known inside Amazon, the FTC said, as the “Iliad flow,” a term that evokes the seemingly endless Trojan War as described in Homer’s epic. It was, as the agency laid it out, a “four-page, six-click, fifteen option” cancellation process.

Amazon pared down the process in early 2023, shortly before the FTC filed its lawsuit but after the agency sent it civil investigative demands — a form of subpoena — related to the signup and cancellation processes.

In its answer to the lawsuit, Amazon said that its signup and cancellation procedures complied with federal law by “prominently and repeatedly disclosing key terms, obtaining express informed consent from consumers, and offering a simple cancellation method.” The company also disputed the FTC’s “characterization” of its enrollment and cancellation practices.

The claims in the FTC lawsuit, the company said, are “factually unsupported, legally unprecedented, and wholly antithetical to the FTC’s mission of protecting consumers.” It said that it had established an internal team to analyze customer complaints, and that although the team’s studies arose from “anecdotal feedback expressed from a relatively small number of customers,” it “took that feedback seriously” and made efforts to address the concerns.

The FTC lawsuit is currently scheduled to go to trial in Seattle on Sept. 22.

Businesses that fear the sting of the FTC’s crackdown maintained that the agency had been trying to stamp out a consumer benefit. Auto-renew terms, argued purveyors of home service contracts in a friend-of-the-court brief, appreciate automatic renewals “because they take one thing off their plate given busy workdays, hectic family schedules, or other demanding circumstances.”

The appeals judges expressed some empathy with the victims of marketing scams. “We certainly do not endorse the use of unfair and deceptive practices in negative option marketing,” they wrote.

But they subjected the commission’s rulemaking procedure to pitiless quibbling. The commission had failed at one point to issue a “preliminary” regulatory analysis of its proposed rule, as required by law in some cases. But the FTC did issue a “final” analysis, which was available for public comment.

Yet there could be little in a preliminary analysis that the final analysis wouldn’t cover, and businesses had every opportunity to pick it apart (as they did). Nevertheless, because of the FTC’s shortcut, the judges said, the business community “lost a notable opportunity to dissuade the FTC” from issuing the rule.

Is that plausible? Industry could hardly be unaware that the rule was under consideration; businesses had mobilized to protect negative option marketing starting at least in 2019, and they hardly lacked for resources to “dissuade” the commission.

This ruling looks more like a reflection of the observation of Dickens’ Mr. Bumble in Oliver Twist: “The law is a ass.” The rule addressed a known consumer abuse that had received bipartisan condemnation in Congress over the years. In developing the rule, the FTC solicited public comment at virtually every stage.

Moreover, the rule addressed a marketing process that is destined to keep mushrooming. Companies that used to market their products on a buy-once, use-forever basis have turned to subscription models that allow them to collect fees once a month or annually into the limitless future. If buyers forget that they subscribed and don’t notice the regular charges on their credit card or bank statements, so much the better.

“Everything wants to be a subscription now,” Khan told Torre. “Firms have identified this as a key revenue source, and they’ve noted that to fully monetize that, they need to make it as easy to sign up and as difficult to cancel” as they can. So they implemented “explicit strategies to make that happen.”

Three conservative judges have given those strategies new life. It’s up to the FTC to make its chairman’s promise a reality.

Business

‘Minions & Monsters’ tops the box office, but with a lower-than-expected haul

Published

7 hours ago

July 5, 2026

Press Room

‘Minions & Monsters’ tops the box office, but with a lower-than-expected haul

The Minions took over theaters this weekend as Universal Pictures and Illumination’s “Minions & Monsters” won the top spot at the box office, though with a lower-than-expected domestic haul.

The animated movie, which follows the Minions’ takeover of Hollywood, took in $61.4 million in the U.S. and Canada for the five-day Fourth of July holiday weekend, according to studio estimates. That haul was lower than analysts’ expectations for a domestic opening of about $68 million. The movie’s three-day total was $36.4 million.

But the Minions performed well internationally, bringing in about $85 million. In total, “Minions & Monsters” made $159.9 million worldwide on a production budget of about $85 million.

The film is the latest in the powerhouse franchise that began with “Despicable Me” in 2010. Across its previous six installments, the “Despicable Me” and “Minions” franchise has made more than $5.6 billion at the global box office. The last movie, 2022’s “Minions: The Rise of Gru,” made more than $940 million worldwide.

“Minions & Monsters” marks the lowest opening for the franchise. Part of the issue could be timing — the box office can be negatively affected when the Fourth of July lands on a Saturday, said Paul Dergarabedian, head of marketplace trends at Rentrak.

Walt Disney Co. and Pixar’s “Toy Story 5” came in second at the box office this weekend with a domestic three-day gross of $31 million. Angel Studios’ biopic “Young Washington” ($20.8 million), Warner Bros. and DC Studios’ “Supergirl” ($9.6 million) and Universal’s “Disclosure Day” ($6 million) rounded out the top five, according to Rentrak.

The haul for “Minions & Monsters,” coupled with the strong holdover performance of “Toy Story 5,” proved again that family films are making a dent in the summer box office.

“Toy Story 5” has now brought in a total of $764.3 million worldwide, and last month, Universal, Illumination and Nintendo’s “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” crossed $1 billion at the global box office, becoming the first film of any kind to do so this year.

The rest of the summer theatrical lineup is also expected to bring in audiences and push domestic box office totals closer to pre-pandemic figures. Next week, Disney will release its live-action “Moana,” followed by Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” and Sony Pictures’ “Spider-Man: Brand New Day.”

To date, the summer box office is now about $2.3 billion, a nearly 12% increase compared with the same period a year ago, according to Rentrak data. Compared with pre-pandemic 2019’s numbers, however, it is still down about 7%.

Business

China-backed AI tool behind fake Brad Pitt fight making Hollywood inroads

Published

17 hours ago

July 5, 2026

Press Room

China-backed AI tool behind fake Brad Pitt fight making Hollywood inroads

Earlier this year, a widely circulated 15-second AI-generated video of Brad Pitt fighting Tom Cruise on a rooftop sparked outrage across Hollywood. One screenwriter called the cinematic clip “terrifying.” The Motion Picture Assn. demanded the company behind the artificial intelligence tool — Chinese tech giant ByteDance — halt its “infringing activity.”

Despite the uproar, the former majority owner of TikTok has quietly continued to court filmmakers, independent artists and executives who are eager to adopt the AI video generation model called Seedance.

Seedance was launched in the U.S. this spring at a Santa Monica event hosted by a group linked to the Chinese government.

ByteDance began hiring for 100 open roles, signed multiple independent filmmakers and artists and held private conversations about financing AI films. The company threw a lavish caviar party at Cannes and in May hosted panels promoting its cinematic tool at Amazon’s AI on the Lot event in Culver City.

“Like any new technology, Hollywood ultimately has no choice but to react to market realities. And that reality is that the new crop of AI-empowered Hollywood creatives see Seedance as having the most powerful video generator in the market right now,” said Peter Csathy of Creative Media, an entertainment and AI business advisory firm.

Joel Kuwahara, the animation producer on early seasons of “The Simpsons,” echoed Hollywood’s quiet embrace.

“Within the industry, I know that a lot of studios haven’t approved Seedance, but yet with a wink and a nod, they’re allowing Seedance to be used. … It’s kind of like a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ kind of a thing,’” Kuwahara told The Times.

ByteDance declined to comment on its U.S. expansion.

The race to build the dominant AI video model has created a fierce rivalry, pitting U.S. companies against the fast-closing Chinese competitors. On the American side, there are Google Veo and startups such as Runway and Luma. OpenAI’s Sora has discontinued its video tool.

The Chinese challengers Seedance, Kling and Alibaba’s HappyHorse have rapidly closed the gap on cinematic realism and have upstaged their American rivals by undercutting them on cost.

According to Artificial Analysis, a company that tracks cost and performances of different AI models, China’s Seedance is currently the most cost-effective and high-quality option compared with U.S. competitors. Seedance costs $9 per minute for video with audio generation, significantly lower than the $24 per minute required by Google’s Veo model.

That makes it an attractive tool for independent filmmakers like Rupert Wainwright, who recently met with Seedance executives at AI on the Lot.

He wants to use the the tool to help make his feature-length film called “Sebastian,” about a Christian saint set in 3rd century Rome. The hybrid AI film will be shot partly on location in Europe and partly generated with artificial intelligence.

“It’s the equivalent to when streaming a movie over the internet onto your TV finally became possible,” Wainwright said.

Kavan Cardoza.

(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)

In May, Steven Schneider, the producer of “Paranormal Activity,” famous for its handheld grainy footage-style filmmaking, announced “Terrarium,” his first hybrid AI horror production. The film’s director, Jason Zada, said it will be entirely generated using Seedance’s model.

Zada’s filmmaking workflow involves writing, casting, prompting and editing all simultaneously, allowing him to rewrite scripts based on “dailies” generated by AI that day.

He estimates that generating 15 seconds of high-definition video costs only $5.

“We could go from a very detailed outline, very detailed characters and have it be a bit more fluid, because we could regen[erate] as much as we want,” Zada said.

Zada plans to shoot the movie first on a soundstage with real actors and will decide later which parts work better traditionally and what should be done synthetically. He’s a member of the Directors Guild of America and said he will be employing union actors for his hybrid AI film.

Seedance also has continued building ties by offering indie creators, AI-native studios and filmmakers free monthly credits and access to unreleased features. These “tastemakers” beta test its models, offer feedback on what works, and use it for their personal filmmaking projects — which creates corporate brand awareness.

Kavan Cardoza is one such breakout filmmaker. His AI fantasy series, “The Chronicle of Bones,” which uses Seedance, features half a dozen distinct storylines and an ensemble of characters. New episodes, each not more than 30 minutes, are released on YouTube once a month. The solo filmmaker averages 3 million views per episode and has cultivated a YouTube audience of 500,000.

Most filmmakers are tool agnostic, but lately Cardoza has become completely dependent on Seedance, he said, because it solves a persistent problem: maintaining character consistency between shots.

To create one of his characters, “the last lost boy,” Cardoza took self-portraits wearing a three-faced mask and a tattered brown jacket. He used those reference images for the AI character and transforms them into a stylized person, with a personality, backstory and visual details. He fed those images back to Seedance to get consistent characters — repeating the process for each member of the cast.

“I can’t go get Brad Pitt because he costs like $5, 10, 20 million to be in my film,” Cardoza said. “I can probably get a synthetic actor that will act just as good as Brad Pitt in the future. That’s crazy to me.”

Cardoza has copyrighted his script and characters, and aims to eventually attract major studio interest to turn his intellectual property into a film which comes with a built-in fan base.

Such plans are likely to face resistance from the performers union SAG-AFTRA, which has decried the use of synthetic actors such as Tilly Norwood.

“The rise of Seedance comes down to [its] focus on pleasing filmmakers and making things that look filmic,” said Stephan Vladimir Bugaj, senior vice president of JioStar, a joint venture between Disney and India’s Reliance Industries.

ByteDance introduced timeline-based prompting so filmmakers can actually pick specific moments and tweak them, and improved the understanding of camera direction, physics, lighting and fluidity of action. All of this, Bugaj said, “unlocked a kind of spectacle filmmaking that the other models are not delivering quite as well.”

The company’s tool has been in such high demand, Zada said, that Seedance has been quoting some major Hollywood studios $2 million for unrestricted special access.

While acknowledging Seedance’s popularity and its U.S. expansion, Amit Jain, chief executive of Luma, said its ceiling in Hollywood is severely limited. Traditional studios might adopt Chinese models for some preproduction tasks such as concepting, but the geopolitical and intellectual property risks for commercial generations are too prohibitive.

“Can you imagine Disney using the ByteDance model for the next ‘Snow White’? No way,” Jain said. “This is not even a technical argument, really. That’s the reality.”

Luma has been making inroads into Hollywood selling its software but has separately funded a production service company to teach filmmakers to make hybrid AI films using its tools.

Despite conservative production budgets, AI spending by media companies is projected to grow from $2.6 billion to $12.5 billion from 2024 to 2029, according to a State of Generative AI Media report.

A hand presses open a book between photos of a burning head.

Bugaj warned that the quality and competitive price of Chinese models should be a “wake-up call” for American players fighting for market share.

“We’re not loyal,” said Zada, the filmmaker. “Whatever is the best, we’re going to use it.”

Business

California is bringing back EV rebates. This is how to get one

Published

1 day ago

July 4, 2026

Press Room

California is bringing back EV rebates. This is how to get one

Nearly a year after the expiration of a $7,500 federal tax incentive for new electric vehicles, California is stepping in to try to motivate buyers to go electric.

Gov. Gavin Newsom allocated $135 million in his new state budget to provide incentives for new and used EVs. Participating automakers will match the funds.

California leads the nation in EV adoption, though the market has taken a hit under the Trump administration.

The state budget — a more than $350-billion spending plan — went into effect Wednesday. The EV incentives will take effect in the coming weeks as the California Air Resources Board irons out agreements with dealerships.

Here’s what you need to know.

What are the incentives worth?

Senate Bill 168 tasked the California Air Resources Board with setting incentive amounts for new and used electric vehicles sold in California.

Eligible buyers will receive $3,500 off for new EVs and $1,750 off for used ones. Unlike the federal tax credits that expired in September, these incentives offer an instant discount and don’t require buyers to apply for credit later.

State funds will cover half of the incentive amount, and auto manufacturers will cover the other half.

The rebates will mean that most eligible buyers will effectively get between 4% and 7% of their money back.

For used EVs, “this incentive helps what’s already a good deal become an even better deal,” said auto analyst Brian Moody. “I think that’s the perfect use of these kinds of dollars.”

What are the rules and exceptions?

The new incentives can’t be used on all electric vehicles — they apply only to new EVs with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of $50,000 or less, and used EVs with a sale price of $25,000 or less.

The $50,000 maximum rules out many options on the market, but legislation outlining the incentive program makes a special exception for California-based companies. Buyers purchasing a new or used EV from a company with headquarters in California can claim the discount regardless of the vehicle price.

That’s good news for Lucid, with headquarters in Newark, Calif., and for Irvine-based Rivian. Neither company currently offers new vehicles for less than $50,000. Rivian said it plans to launch a $44,990 SUV in 2027.

Who is eligible?

California’s new EV discounts are available only to first-time EV buyers, according to the legislation.

SB 168 says the buyer’s eligibility will be “confirmed by a buyer attestation” that they have not previously owned a zero-emission vehicle.

The new EV incentive is less than half of the federal incentive that expired nine months ago. Whereas the federal incentive may have been enough to spark interest in a range of buyers, Moody said the lesser amount will probably appeal mainly to people who already have their eye on an EV.

“I think you have to already be considering it, or in the market,” Moody said. “I think that the amount is just right for that.”

What are California’s clean car goals?

The incentives are intended to help California reach its electric vehicle and air quality goals as those targets have been under fire from President Trump.

Shortly after taking office, Trump signed an executive order that revoked California’s authority to set its own EV regulations, which included a goal of having 100% of new vehicle sales in the state be zero-emission by 2035.

California sued the administration in response. The state also has goals, including some that have been in place since 2012, that set declining limits on smog-causing pollutants and required automakers to sell increasing percentages of electric and hybrid vehicles through 2025.

In March, the administration filed a new lawsuit again trying to block California’s ability to set stricter-than-federal emissions standards for cars.

Early this year, California announced that more than 2.5 million zero-emission vehicles had been sold in the state since 2010, surpassing a target to put 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2025.