The Aftermath of the Click to Cancel Court Ruling – Amazon, Xfinity, Bloomberg, and Thomson Reuters are Just Three Examples of Bad Actors
Last thing I remember
I was running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
"Relax, " said the night man
"We are programmed to receive
You can check out any time you like
But you can never leave"
--The Eagles, Hotel California
--Songwriters: Glenn Lewis Frey / Don Felder / Donald Hugh Henley
In mid-2025, a federal appeals court blocked the implementation of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) so-called "click-to-cancel" rule, which would have required companies to make canceling subscriptions (i.e., for publications or for software) as easy as signing up. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals halted the rule, set to go into effect in July 2025, due to procedural flaws allegedly relating to the cost-benefit analysis. The FTC's rule was intended to make companies provide a simple cancellation mechanism (such as a single click online) for subscriptions and automatic renewals, prohibiting complex, "doom loop" retention tactics. But the Eighth Circuit found that the FTC did not conduct proper preliminary regulatory analysis regarding the rule's economic impact, which it deemed a "fatal procedural flaw".
In response to the Eighth Circuit’s decision, the FTC is revisiting the issue. On January 30, 2026, the FTC submitted a draft Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The new notice focuses on negative option plans. It has been submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required under Executive Orders 12866 and 14215. This activity thus suggests that the initiative isn’t dead. Presumably, upon OIRA’s completion of its review, the FTC can publish the ANPRM in the Federal Register, resolicit public comment, and start the ball rolling again.
This blog is a call for the FTC to stay with it. This isn’t a partisan issue. It is a question of farness and corporate responsibility. Without some new regulations, corporate America is allowing roguish policy to govern the renewal of its software and publication practices. The litigation over the roadblocks which were put in place by Amazon to make subscribers run the gauntlet in order to terminated their Amazon Prime subscriptions is well-known. But Amazon isn’t a singular bad actor. The problem is pervasive.
I have a pro bono case for a client who emailed Bloomberg over a subscription, who was told in writing in writing that his subscription would be terminated, and then has been harassed ever since by Bloomberg demanding a large new subscription fee. I wrote Bloomberg on his behalf almost four weeks ago, but they have not replied. Ordinary folks should have to gain access to a lawyer in order to cancel their subscriptions. Shame on Mr. Bloomberg.
Here at Abrahams Wolf-Rodda, LLC (AWR) we also had our own run-in with both Xfinity/Comcast and Thomson Reuters over the cancellation of our Contracts.
Xfinity/Comcast is notorious for bad service. It took literally eight telephone calls and chats to get our internet ISP service cancelled. They were charging us $250 a month exercising a monopolist power, since the AWR office building was only wired for their service. But the advent of cellular ISP internet service lead us to dump Comcast t for T-Mobile at a fraction of the price. Even after they agreed to cancel they still continued billing us. It took several written letters to them and a refusal to pay to resolve the matter and formally get the service cancelled. They are truly a roach hotel — you can check in but you can’t check out.
And then there is the matter of our law law firm’s WestLaw account. We recently specifically wrote them a formal termination letter per the terms of our written contract; and then we sent it to them by US Postal Service, as they demanded in the contract, where it was received, giving advanced notice of the cancellation of our Westlaw service at the end of its natural term. We wrote Thomson/Reuters as follows:
This constitutes Abrahams Wolf-Rodda, LLC’s timely 30-day notice of cancellation of our subscription for WestLaw services on its natural expiration date. We have a 12-month subscription which continues through June 16, 2026. Please do NOT automatically renew our subscription.
Here is the response we received from Thomson Reuters telling us in pertinent part as follows:
Hello,
We have received your request to cancel your existing Westlaw services. In reviewing your account and Westlaw service agreement, we noted that you still have some time left before your contract expiration date of July 31, 2026.
It has been our long-standing policy and belief that agreements made with Thomson Reuters should be honored by both parties. We are unable to grant your request for early termination and will continue delivery of Westlaw services according to our agreement.
If you would like to cancel your Westlaw services at the end of your agreement, please provide written notice at least 30 days prior to your expiration date. At this time, no written notice has been received and no end date to expire your service has been scheduled.
I don’t know what planet they are living on, but we are of the view that we didn’t terminate early. We only had a 12-month agreement executed June 17, 2025.. Even if there is some kind of tail to the term, we think they are playing games with our contract renewal date.
It is precisely this kind of corporate BS which supports the click to cancel rules proposed by the FTC. WestLaw makes it possible to sign up online, but impossible to cancel online, and refuses to acknowledge written cancellation notices done in accordance with its own agreement. These kinds of corporate business practices need to stop.