> An administrative law judge decided that the economic impact would be more than the $100 million threshold.
I do find it fascinating that one administrator has the ability to claim, seemingly from thin air, that it would be more than 100mil and so cancel the entire rule. Wouldn't it be better if the rule was reviewed AFTER the year to determine if modifications or Analysis should be performed?
Seems that when it comes to consumer protections in the US the companies are ALWAYS given the benefit of the doubt.
That's why I call it United States of Corporations. A world in which people bow down to companies as their overlords, defend them fiercely, at the expense of personal freedom, financial ability, and general life quality. Could also bring parallels to a religion in which its followers commit sacrifices for their deity, and to the point that if there's somewhere that does things differently, like EU, they get upset and want them to stop doing things differently, because there is only one true deity in this world (corporations).
Hum... To be fair, it's extremely unlikely that something like this, that impacts about every company that sells subscriptions can have an impact lower than $100 million.
I have no idea why the US FTC didn't do an impact analysis. I have no idea even how they decided of deadlines for compliance without one. (It's not easy to write a decision like this without some data.)
But yeah, the US consumer protection is really lacking, and this decision only reinforces it.
I do find it fascinating that one administrator has the ability to claim, seemingly from thin air, that it would be more than 100mil and so cancel the entire rule. Wouldn't it be better if the rule was reviewed AFTER the year to determine if modifications or Analysis should be performed?
Seems that when it comes to consumer protections in the US the companies are ALWAYS given the benefit of the doubt.