Reading The Tea Leaves: Is The FTC Likely To Revive "Click To Cancel"?

The Federal Trade Commission's "Click to Cancel" rule may be dead—for now—but recent agency moves suggest its ghost may not rest quietly.

The Long Shadow of the 1973 Rule

The FTC's original Negative Option Rule, adopted in 1973, was a relic of the mail-order era. It applied narrowly to "prenotification" negative-option plans—think book-of-the-month clubs—and required clear disclosures and easy opt-outs.

Then came the subscription economy. To address new challenges, Congress enacted the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA), mandating disclosures, consent and simple cancellation methods for online transactions. But ROSCA governs only sales "completed online," leaving a vast universe of recurring-charge programs outside its scope.

From ANPRM to NPRM: A Broader Vision

Recognizing that gap, the FTC launched a multi-year rulemaking to modernize the 1973 rule. Starting with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2019 and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2023, the agency proposed broader protections: clear disclosures, express informed consent, and cancellation "as easy to use as the method of enrollment" for all subscription plans, regardless of the enrollment method.

Crucially, the proposal also included a broad prohibition on "material misrepresentations"—not limited to false statements about the negative-option feature itself, but reaching deceptive claims about the underlying product or service sold through recurring-charge plans. That catch-all provision would have allowed the FTC to pursue ordinary advertising misrepresentations under the banner of regulating negative-option marketing, dramatically expanding the rule's reach.

By late 2024, the FTC finalized what became known as "Click to Cancel." But the Commission split. Commissioner Melissa Holyoak dissented, calling the rule an overreach that wouldn't survive judicial review. Many predicted that, under the Commission's new leadership, enforcement would fall off the priority list.

The Eighth Circuit Fight

Multiple industry groups challenged the amended Negative Option Rule in federal court, and the petitions were consolidated before the Eighth Circuit. The FTC didn't just defend the rule—it leaned in hard. In its March 2025 brief, the agency argued that extending the ban on "material misrepresentations and omissions" beyond the subscription feature itself was justified because recurring-charge programs pose distinctive risks. When consumers make one-time purchases, each transaction forces a fresh moment of consent. But in subscription models, payments recur automatically—allowing deceptive marketing to extract money month after month before consumers realize what's happening. According to the FTC, that structural vulnerability warrantsadditional protection by rule.

Although the Eighth Circuit ultimately vacated the rule on procedural grounds—holding that the Commission failed to conduct a required regulatory analysis—the agency's defense underscored its broader view that subscription programs demand heightened safeguards against deception.

The Amazon Order: An Easter Egg in Plain Sight

Then came the FTC v. Amazon stipulated order in late September 2025. Buried in paragraph VI, under "Negative Option Rule," was this line:

"To the extent the Commission promulgates an amended rule or regulation governing negative options or subscriptions, the requirements of that rule will supersede the corresponding provisions of this order."

That's not boilerplate. It reads like a deliberate placeholder—future-proofing the settlement for the reappearance of Click to Cancel. The clause all but acknowledges the Commission expects, or at least hopes, to revive the rule in some form.

Meador's "Kitchen-Table" Focus

At the National Advertising Division's annual conference in September 2025, Commissioner Mark R. Meador reiterated that the FTC is prioritizing "kitchen-table issues"—the everyday economic concerns affecting ordinary households. In response to audience questions, he reportedly expressed disappointment that Click to Cancel had been vacated and said the Commission was considering whether to revisit rulemaking on the topic.

Those comments, combined with the agency's vigorous Eighth Circuit defense, suggest that Click to Cancel falls squarely within the kind of "kitchen-table" consumer issues Meador has said the Commission intends to tackle—recurring-billing traps, cancellation hurdles, and deceptive online flows.

Reading the Tea Leaves

Taken together—a strong defense before the Eighth Circuit, forward-looking language in the Amazon order, a stream of 2025 ROSCA actions, and Meador's public remarks—the pattern is unmistakable.

Even if the Commission doesn't immediately take steps to reissue the vacated rule, its litigation posture and enforcement strategy suggest that subscription practices will remain a top-tier priority for the Bureau of Consumer Protection.

For advertisers and subscription-based businesses, the path forward is clear: provide transparent disclosures, obtain affirmative consent, and make cancellation as effortless as sign-up. The "Click to Cancel" may be down, but it's not out - and the FTC appears to be keeping its options open.

www.fkks.com

This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.