On July 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the Federal Trade Commission’s “Click-to-Cancel” Rule, which was intended to govern negative-option offers.

Negative-option offers are widely used. They include all offers in which the seller interprets a consumer’s silence or failure to take affirmative action as acceptance or continuing acceptance of an offer. That includes, for instance, “automatic renewal” offers, like magazine and streaming service subscriptions, in which sellers automatically renew a consumer’s subscription when it expires, unless the consumer affirmatively cancels the subscription; and “free trial” offers, in which a good or service is offered for free (or at a reduced price) for a trial period and, after the trial period, at a higher price unless a consumer affirmatively cancels or returns the good or service.

As written, the Click-to-Cancel Rule prohibits negative option sellers from making misrepresentations about the negative option and requires them to (1) clearly and conspicuously disclose all material terms; (2) obtain each consumer’s express, informed consent for the negative-option feature; and (3) provide a simple cancellation mechanism for the negative-option feature, with that mechanism being “at least as easy to use as the mechanism the consumer used to consent” to the negative-option feature. Absent the Eighth Circuit’s decision, the Click-to-Cancel Rule would have become effective as of July 14, 2025.

In vacating the rule, the Eighth Circuit held that the FTC failed to comply with procedural requirements governing its rulemaking, and thus deprived the petitioners—comprised of various industry associations and individual businesses—of a fair opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.

Under its current leadership, the FTC may not ask the Supreme Court to review the Eighth Circuit’s decision or initiate a new rulemaking process to resurrect the Click-to-Cancel Rule. 

But businesses using negative-options offers should not let their guards down, even if the Click-to-Cancel rule is not resurrected. The FTC has other tools available to police negative-option offers, including the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and its authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to prevent unfair and deceptive acts and practices. State Attorneys General are also actively enforcing state-level automatic renewal rules, many of which have been enacted or amended in recent years to more closely regulate negative-option offers. Indeed, more than half the states now have automatic-renewal laws, and many of those laws are as strict or stricter than the FTC’s now-vacated Click-to-Cancel Rule. Beyond government enforcement actions, businesses should also remain vigilant given the risk of consumer class actions challenging negative-option offers.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Timothy A. Butler Timothy A. Butler

Tim Butler helps companies thrive by developing tailored strategies to address their regulatory compliance challenges and vigorously defending them in government enforcement actions and bet-the-company lawsuits.

A former prosecuting attorney for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and former senior official in the Georgia…

Tim Butler helps companies thrive by developing tailored strategies to address their regulatory compliance challenges and vigorously defending them in government enforcement actions and bet-the-company lawsuits.

A former prosecuting attorney for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and former senior official in the Georgia Attorney General’s Office, Tim has led the defense of dozens of government investigations and enforcement actions brought by the FTC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and the various state attorneys general. Tim also regularly defends clients in bet-the-company lawsuits, including complex business disputes and consumer class actions alleging privacy, false advertising, and unfair or deceptive business practice claims.

Tim is an experienced guide for companies struggling with regulatory complexity. He offers clear advice that helps his clients meet the demands of the ever-growing set of laws and regulations governing data privacy and cybersecurity, advertising and marketing practices, and consumer financial products and services. Clients rely on Tim’s business-minded and practical strategies to address their most difficult regulatory compliance challenges.

A graduate of the University of Chicago and Stanford Law School, Tim is a prolific author and regularly speaks to industry and trade groups about the evolving privacy landscape, about cutting-edge issues affecting payments and fintech companies, and about developments at the FTC, the CFPB, and within the state attorneys general community.

Photo of Matthew White Matthew White

Matt White guides clients through regulatory compliance challenges and represents clients in regulatory and civil investigations and litigation.

Matt has counseled fintech and payment companies on regulatory compliance matters, including those involving the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the…

Matt White guides clients through regulatory compliance challenges and represents clients in regulatory and civil investigations and litigation.

Matt has counseled fintech and payment companies on regulatory compliance matters, including those involving the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and their respective implementing regulations (Regulations E, V, P, and Z). Adept with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) Prepaid Rule, Matt has provided guidance regarding prepaid cards and related compliance.

Matt has also aided clients in developing regulatory compliant products and functionalities, including an earned wage access program, reimbursement prepaid card programs, new merchant cash advance products, and tokenized payment capabilities. In connection with products on which Matt advises, he has also negotiated high-stakes technology sales agreements involving complex regulatory issues, including compliance with data privacy laws, financial regulations, and card network rules.

Beyond helping clients strategize for regulatory complexity, Matt also helps clients navigate government investigations and enforcement actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), CFPB, and state attorneys general.

Photo of Tessa Cierny Tessa Cierny

Tessa Cierny advises companies on financial technology and data privacy issues. She has experience counseling companies on state and federal regulatory compliance, including existing and emerging privacy laws, such as the E.U.’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act

Tessa Cierny advises companies on financial technology and data privacy issues. She has experience counseling companies on state and federal regulatory compliance, including existing and emerging privacy laws, such as the E.U.’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), as well as financial and banking regulations, such as the CFPB’s Section 1071 Small Business Lending Rule (Regulation B). In addition, she assists clients in defending business disputes and data breach litigation.

Prior to joining Greenberg Traurig, she served as global records manager for WestRock, where she developed and implemented email and data retention policies for global data privacy regulation compliance. In this role, she also advised on data privacy concerns related to data retention, data loss prevention, and data governance.