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.
Time to set my VPN to California
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.
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.
You underestimate the capacity for corporate pettiness
And how bad is the architecture of their legacy systems.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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!
Correct. This happens on a global scale too: it’s why everything is using GDPR compliant cookie dialogs now.
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.”
If they don’t mind not doing business in CA then they are probably fine.
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.
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.
Well shit… that’s an amazing idea.
Removed by mod
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
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.
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?
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.
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.
You do know there can be federal laws without requiring a constitutional amendment, yes?
Sarcasm is not lended to text very well. Can you understand that a state that makes a good law is a good thing and that nuance exists.
Please give me the nuance where a click to cancel law makes sense in California and not in all 49 other states.
You’re being obtuse. I’m done here.
SUN Bucks Summer Food Program for Kids.
There is a constitutional amendment that protects porn though. The first. What’s changed in Texas isn’t porn’s legality, but restrictions on distribution (though yes, Texas’s law is useless and completely misunderstands the internet’s dynamics)
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.
If only there there were a way we could change that…. Hmmm.
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.
Meanwhile, people suffer.
Yeah, that sucks. I would highly support people making better decisions.
But if they are gonna be stubborn, we might as well learn what not to do for the future.
Yaaaaaaaayyyy!!!
i wish the phrase “maybe later” would be forced to be changed to “no”. The word no has disappeared!
Hot damn, that’s EU-level based. Nicely done!
I expect a ruling from SCOTUS that this somehow breaxhes corporation’s 1st amendment rights
It’s arguably unconstitutional even before that. Article 1 section 10, first line, the states may not make laws impairing contracts.
Admittedly it’s thinbut the supreme court has acted on thinner pretext.
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.
The question, as always, is enforcement. It’s a great idea, and good for them for making it happen, and then we’ll find out if they were serious.
