848

Governor Gavin Newsom has signed California's "click to cancel" Assembly Bill 286 into law to make it easier for consumers to opt out of subscriptions. The bill, introduced in April 2024, forces companies that permit online or in-app sign-ups to allow for online or in-app unsubscribing as well.

"AB 2863 is the most comprehensive ‘Click to Cancel’ legislation in the nation, ensuring Californians can cancel unwanted automatic subscription renewals just as easily as they signed up — with just a click or two,” said California Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Wilzax@lemmy.world 168 points 1 month ago

Time to set my VPN to California

[-] bassomitron@lemmy.world 38 points 1 month ago

Will this actually work or will companies go off your billing address? I guess you could probably technically get a proxy address in California for billing. Regardless, this should just be a national law.

[-] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 55 points 1 month ago

Companies that do business in CA will likely follow the law for all of their customers. It’s far more expensive to try to have two systems and possibly handle a CA resident incorrectly.

[-] Sestren@lemmy.world 72 points 1 month ago

You underestimate the capacity for corporate pettiness

[-] cheddar@programming.dev 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

And how bad is the architecture of their legacy systems.

[-] webhead@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago

I assure you they won't. It's not going to be that expensive to only show an option if you're in California. Companies already do this with other things like privacy related stuff.

If the company is already a scumbag company that makes it impossible to cancel, this will only stop them where they have to follow a law.

[-] fishos@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

The reason you see all the pop ups for cookies nowadays is because of GDPR, a European law. It absolutely does work like this. It's vastly cheaper to run one system then 2 systems. It's the same reason California emissions laws become defacto laws for the rest of the country.

[-] candybrie@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

GDPR has a weird quirk of applying to all EU citizens whether or not they're currently in the EU. Cars are physical things and it is harder to make different models. A check of "Is California billing address? Show button. No? Don't show button." would be trivial to implement and would probably result in enough money to make it worth it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

It’s expensive if you screw up and handle a CA resident wrong. It’s also easy to get fined, and easy for the fines to scale up.

[-] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Correct. This happens on a global scale too: it's why everything is using GDPR compliant cookie dialogs now.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

It’s far more expensive to try to have two systems and possibly handle a CA resident incorrectly.

Apple: Hold my doesn't-cure-cancer fruit smoothie!

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

Colorado and California have laws that say you have to list salaries on job postings. As a result, many job posting say "not eligible for residents of Colorado or California" on them, even when the posting is specifically looking for people from those states l.

I'm wondering if this new law has that loophole where companies can just say "hey, we told people from California that our service wasn't for them. It's not our fault that they still signed up for it."

[-] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

If they don’t mind not doing business in CA then they are probably fine.

[-] a_baby_duck@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Doubt they'll go by IP location, but there may be a workaround depending on the service.

For example, California already has a similar law around cancelling gym memberships initiated online. Planet Fitness customers can just set their "home gym" to one in California to get access to one-click cancellation, even if their billing address is in another state.

[-] IamSparticles@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago

I'd like to say that companies will just make this the standard for everyone, like they did with California emissions standards for cars, but the reality is that it will be very difficult to take action against a company that doesn't have their headquarters in California. This isn't like GDPR where a large federal government will fine you into oblivion if you fail to comply while doing business in their jurisdiction. A lot of companies will probably just ignore this.

[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

Well shit… that’s an amazing idea.

[-] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Yaaaaaaaayyyy!!!!

[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 1 month ago

i wish the phrase "maybe later" would be forced to be changed to "no". The word no has disappeared!

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago

F&$)@+ everything about "maybe later". It was the last nail in the coffin for me, any company giving me that bullshit is immediately on my shit list and will be cut out, I'll never do business with you ever again. Every new service I have is open source and self hosted, the only ones left that are not are Netflix, Spotify and (unfortunately for reasons) YouTube. Netflix will be put soon because arr matey, and Spotify will follow soon as well.

I'm done with services and media from companies

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TacticsConsort@yiffit.net 12 points 1 month ago

Hot damn, that's EU-level based. Nicely done!

[-] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 month ago

I expect a ruling from SCOTUS that this somehow breaxhes corporation's 1st amendment rights

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 4 points 1 month ago

yes. You should have to do something to opt in to anything and it should be just as easy or easier to leave or opt out. while we are at it can be take financial fees to close accounts out.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

As good as this is, it's just another example of Republicans shrinking the federal government to unsustainable levels. Click-to-cancel will be implemented in California while showing your ID to access porn sites is happening in Texas, but have fun canceling any subscriptions.

[-] NineMileTower@lemmy.world 94 points 1 month ago

So a Democrat win in California shouldn't be celebrated, because there's an unrelated pointless Republican law in Texas? What are you on about?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

I'm on about the fact that the federal government is so weak that this is the sort of state-to-state bullshit people have to put up with.

[-] NineMileTower@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago

That's literally how the government was designed though. Do you believe that there should be a Constitutional amendment to protect porn and ease of subscription cancellation? I agree that the system is flawed, but a win here deserves to be celebrated even though there was a loss somewhere else.

[-] ThePantser@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Is the company in question national or local to CA only? This is the defining line for laws like this. If a company cannot be distinguished from the services it provides in CA vs any other state then the laws of one state should influence all others since the company is not different between states. Unless they create a different website for each state then they will have a hard time verifying if a user really is from CA and be able to apply the law.

I could be visiting CA and sign up for something while there. My address is not CA, my billing address is not CA, I could be using a VPN connected to my home. But I am physically in CA and signed up for Planet fitness online. Now whose laws protect me? CA or my home state?

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

Reading the law, it looks like it applies if either the business or consumer is in California.

[-] ThePantser@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Ok but in a new situation, I signed up online while in CA. Now I am back home and forgot to cancel. How does one go about using the CA law to cancel? The website might have a link that says "CA residents click here" but what if it does a check and you can't prove by one click you were there in CA when you signed up? These laws then get really tricky to implement. Hence why these kinds of laws that affect national companies should be national laws. Interstate commerce makes it almost impossible to have state laws for this kind of thing.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

If neither you nor the business are in California, the law does not apply.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[-] ravhall@discuss.online 12 points 1 month ago

Sign up in Texas, drive to California and fail to cancel with one click, sue.

But I agree with you, we need something like the GDPR on a federal level.

[-] Soup@lemmy.cafe 2 points 1 month ago

If only there there were a way we could change that…. Hmmm.

[-] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Imo that’s great. The best display of what policies make people’s life better is a stark contrast between two groups implementing opposing systems.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
848 points (99.6% liked)

News

23281 readers
4631 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS