NYC To Become First In US To Ban Deceptive Subscription Practices
6 37On October 1st, New York City will become the first U.S. city to ban deceptive subscription practices, requiring companies to offer simple cancellation options or face fines of $525 per user subscription, back fees, and additional penalties. The Mamdani administration is also proposing a junk-fee rule requiring sellers, landlords, hotels, and other businesses to "advertise the total price for any good or service, including all mandatory additional charges and fees, up front." The Guardian reports: "People shouldn't have to wait on hold for half an hour or send a certified letter or show up to a store in person in order to cancel" a subscription, said Samuel AA Levine, the city's commissioner of consumer and worker protection, in an interview. The new measures are expected to be announced in a press conference on Friday morning.
The proposed fee rule could have an especially wide impact, sending ripples through New York's expensive housing market, where about 70% of residents rent. Apartment renters in the US face a rising tide of add-on fees such as "boiler management" and "lifestyle" charges from management companies, which make true rental costs hundreds of dollars higher than the price stated on real-estate company websites.
If the proposed renters rule passes after public comment and hearing, any mandatory fees, including annual ones, would need to be included in the stated monthly rental price, Levine said. The current situation creates "a scenario where rather than competing on price, companies are competing on their ability to hide the true price. That's the worst kind of incentive" -- and one that deeply distorts the market, Levine said.
6 comments
Re:Didn't The FTC Do This Two years ago? (Score: 5, Informative)
by CommunityMember ( 6662188 ) on Friday July 10, 2026 @04:15PM (#66231916)
https://www.ftc.gov/news-event... [ftc.gov]
What does NYC add that isn't already present?
The FTC's rule was struck down by the courts, and the current administration is apparently disinclined to continue to pursue deception advertising and to force click-to-cancel requirements.
Re:Didn't The FTC Do This Two years ago? (Score: 5, Informative)
by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Friday July 10, 2026 @05:52PM (#66232040)
Also to be extra clear the 8th circuit struck it down for procedure, the FTC was supposed to have done a certain type of economic impact analysis for the rule and it could not go into effect before that happened. The court did not actually make a ruling on the rule itself and in fact were sympathetic to what the law was trying to do.
The FTC can re-implement the rule after that analysis is complete and it can go through the process after that but with the current admin they have chosen not to and generally Republicans were opposed to the rule.
If Lina Khan was still at FTC I imagine it would have been done but Sarah Ferguson who voted against the rule initially now runs it. But both parties are the same of course.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Re:Didn't The FTC Do This Two years ago? (Score: 5, Informative)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Friday July 10, 2026 @04:25PM (#66231940)
Republicans gutted all authority from federal agencies because it made the mega corps unhappy.
Interesting (Score: 5, Insightful)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Friday July 10, 2026 @04:29PM (#66231944)
So it turns out politicians can pass legislation that helps people.
It's too bad... (Score: 5, Insightful)
by PhantomHarlock ( 189617 ) on Friday July 10, 2026 @04:33PM (#66231948)
...that it's just New York City. Hopefully the idea will spread.
Laissez faire capitalism is great if everyone is honest. But in this reality there are a lot of incredibly dishonest people who will do anything for a buck. A modicum of base regulation is desirable to keep consumers from getting swindled at every turn. I applaud efforts like these.
Sounds good (Score: 5, Insightful)
by cosmicl ( 1034776 ) on Friday July 10, 2026 @05:07PM (#66231988)
so why just NYC? How about for all of the US? Oh, wait. elections have consequences.