I hope this FTC strategy of bringing a lot of unwinnable cases works out. They have been getting destroyed in court, but the two arguments are: They are still securing actual rulings that can be...
I hope this FTC strategy of bringing a lot of unwinnable cases works out. They have been getting destroyed in court, but the two arguments are:
They are still securing actual rulings that can be used later.
It puts the companies on notice (or something long these lines) and costs them money to defend so maybe they'll change.
1 I can understand, 2 I really dislike as a reason because it just turns the government into a nuisance lawsuit generator which is a really awful precedent to set. I'm no where near good enough to really assess all this, but things like the recent handbag case have me worried.
Another thing to consider with 2, is simply that companies have been getting away with so much bullshit for so long, its considered defacto legal, even if it shouldn't be. The first few rounds of...
Another thing to consider with 2, is simply that companies have been getting away with so much bullshit for so long, its considered defacto legal, even if it shouldn't be. The first few rounds of enforcement are gonna be a lot harder than the later ones.
That’s not really related to my point, which is more admit the government seeing the standard that it will weaponize the legal system as it sees fit. So what if they lose, it’s just tax payer...
That’s not really related to my point, which is more admit the government seeing the standard that it will weaponize the legal system as it sees fit.
So what if they lose, it’s just tax payer money, and you had to spend millions defending in court when it was clear the case was doomed from the start is not a healthy attitude.
That’s why there’s concern with these FTC cases as they certainly appear DOA and aren’t even arguing in ways supported by the precedence
No, it's very related. Say, on one of the most high-profile losses: Blocking the Acti-Blizz aquisition. Under the new rules, and common sense, there's no way that merger should have been...
No, it's very related. Say, on one of the most high-profile losses: Blocking the Acti-Blizz aquisition.
Under the new rules, and common sense, there's no way that merger should have been permitted. But the courts used some convoluted nonsense to justify allowing it.
Anti-trust is rising from the grave. As court wins start happening, having that precedent will help insure they win more later. The problem being this process takes years to shake out....it's been all doom and gloom for 2 years about the failures yet they're making more progress than in the last 20.
The first order of business for the businesses being targetted by the CFPB was to sue to dissolve the CFPB's funding model, and they had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get there.
What new rules? What common sense? It's a vertical merger, these are very commonly let through. That's why EU regulators, which tend to be more litigious, didn't really care all that much. There's...
What new rules? What common sense? It's a vertical merger, these are very commonly let through. That's why EU regulators, which tend to be more litigious, didn't really care all that much. There's no convolutions necessary.
Not to mention the FTC did a horrible job arguing that case; when the judge needs to remind you that you are supposed to be advocating for the people of the united states, and not Sony, you know you fucked up.
weaponize the legal system - the legal system is already weaponize. at least when the government gets involved it's playing fire with fire given how these large companies are doing the same. as far as tax payer money - that's a bs! sorry but there are a lot of things that government wastes money on and this is nothing compared to military spending.
I'm not even sure where to start here other than to say that just because something is not ideal doesn't mean it can't be way way worse. It bothers me how just about every side of the political...
I'm not even sure where to start here other than to say that just because something is not ideal doesn't mean it can't be way way worse. It bothers me how just about every side of the political spectrum for the last 20 years has been paving the road for horrific governmental behavior because "oh it's my team in office right now", and then surprise, they lose and the next team abuses it even more.
Yes they'll try to anyways, yes it's not perfect, but honestly if the FTC was doing this 25 years ago it'd be absolutely out of line. There are ways to handle these cases (which they basically did with MS until they cut them a sweetheart deal at the last moment for economic and political reasons), and this very much doesn't look right.
Good. I think Adobe came up last week and I wondered in my head "how is this contract thing still legal" (Because the paid cancellation fees always come up with Adobe). I'd go so far to say that...
Good. I think Adobe came up last week and I wondered in my head "how is this contract thing still legal" (Because the paid cancellation fees always come up with Adobe).
I'd go so far to say that reocurring subscriptions must be opt-in, but baby steps.
When consumers have attempted to cancel their subscription on the company’s website, they have been forced to navigate numerous pages in order to cancel.
This is funny, but I wonder if this is just Hanlon's razor. It's been a while but I don't remember my adobe cancellation page showing more than 1 or 2 "please don't go how about [deal]" kinds of things to try and keep you on. I can definitely imagine it getting worse in the past decade though.
When consumers reach out to Adobe’s customer service to cancel, they encounter resistance and delay from Adobe representatives. Consumers also experience other obstacles, such as dropped calls and chats, and multiple transfers. Some consumers who thought they had successfully cancelled their subscription reported that the company continued to charge them until discovering the charges on their credit card statements.
This is a surprise to hear. I don't recall ever needing any chatbot or call to cancel my subsctiption. But I kept a close eye on my subsciption and made sure to know when I could properly cancel.
Adobe stopped being a company that I pay for products from years ago. Their software is buggy, the new features are hardly worth the price tag and I'm convinced that they're putting far more...
Adobe stopped being a company that I pay for products from years ago.
Their software is buggy, the new features are hardly worth the price tag and I'm convinced that they're putting far more effort into online trade shows than innovating.
I hope this FTC strategy of bringing a lot of unwinnable cases works out. They have been getting destroyed in court, but the two arguments are:
1 I can understand, 2 I really dislike as a reason because it just turns the government into a nuisance lawsuit generator which is a really awful precedent to set. I'm no where near good enough to really assess all this, but things like the recent handbag case have me worried.
Another thing to consider with 2, is simply that companies have been getting away with so much bullshit for so long, its considered defacto legal, even if it shouldn't be. The first few rounds of enforcement are gonna be a lot harder than the later ones.
That’s not really related to my point, which is more admit the government seeing the standard that it will weaponize the legal system as it sees fit.
So what if they lose, it’s just tax payer money, and you had to spend millions defending in court when it was clear the case was doomed from the start is not a healthy attitude.
That’s why there’s concern with these FTC cases as they certainly appear DOA and aren’t even arguing in ways supported by the precedence
No, it's very related. Say, on one of the most high-profile losses: Blocking the Acti-Blizz aquisition.
Under the new rules, and common sense, there's no way that merger should have been permitted. But the courts used some convoluted nonsense to justify allowing it.
Anti-trust is rising from the grave. As court wins start happening, having that precedent will help insure they win more later. The problem being this process takes years to shake out....it's been all doom and gloom for 2 years about the failures yet they're making more progress than in the last 20.
The first order of business for the businesses being targetted by the CFPB was to sue to dissolve the CFPB's funding model, and they had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get there.
What new rules? What common sense? It's a vertical merger, these are very commonly let through. That's why EU regulators, which tend to be more litigious, didn't really care all that much. There's no convolutions necessary.
Not to mention the FTC did a horrible job arguing that case; when the judge needs to remind you that you are supposed to be advocating for the people of the united states, and not Sony, you know you fucked up.
I'm not even sure where to start here other than to say that just because something is not ideal doesn't mean it can't be way way worse. It bothers me how just about every side of the political spectrum for the last 20 years has been paving the road for horrific governmental behavior because "oh it's my team in office right now", and then surprise, they lose and the next team abuses it even more.
Yes they'll try to anyways, yes it's not perfect, but honestly if the FTC was doing this 25 years ago it'd be absolutely out of line. There are ways to handle these cases (which they basically did with MS until they cut them a sweetheart deal at the last moment for economic and political reasons), and this very much doesn't look right.
Good. I think Adobe came up last week and I wondered in my head "how is this contract thing still legal" (Because the paid cancellation fees always come up with Adobe).
I'd go so far to say that reocurring subscriptions must be opt-in, but baby steps.
This is funny, but I wonder if this is just Hanlon's razor. It's been a while but I don't remember my adobe cancellation page showing more than 1 or 2 "please don't go how about [deal]" kinds of things to try and keep you on. I can definitely imagine it getting worse in the past decade though.
This is a surprise to hear. I don't recall ever needing any chatbot or call to cancel my subsctiption. But I kept a close eye on my subsciption and made sure to know when I could properly cancel.
Adobe stopped being a company that I pay for products from years ago.
Their software is buggy, the new features are hardly worth the price tag and I'm convinced that they're putting far more effort into online trade shows than innovating.
Hell, Canva has them shaking.