![]() ![]() “Amazon tricked and trapped people into recurring subscriptions without their consent, not only frustrating users but also costing them significant money,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Amazon leadership slowed or rejected changes that would’ve made it easier for users to cancel Prime because those changes adversely affected Amazon’s bottom line. The primary purpose of its Prime cancellation process was not to enable subscribers to cancel, but to stop them. Specifically, Amazon used manipulative, coercive, or deceptive user-interface designs known as “dark patterns” to trick consumers into enrolling in automatically-renewing Prime subscriptions.Īmazon also knowingly complicated the cancellation process for Prime subscribers who sought to end their membership. In a complaint filed today, the FTC charges that Amazon has knowingly duped millions of consumers into unknowingly enrolling in Amazon Prime. for its years-long effort to enroll consumers into its Prime program without their consent while knowingly making it difficult for consumers to cancel their subscriptions to Prime. The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against, Inc. About the FTC Show/hide About the FTC menu items.News and Events Show/hide News and Events menu items.Advice and Guidance Show/hide Advice and Guidance menu items.Competition and Consumer Protection Guidance Documents.Enforcement Show/hide Enforcement menu items.The Commission vote approving the filing of the amicus brief was 3-0. The brief notes that the FTC receives thousands of complaints from consumers each year related to discriminatory lending practices. For example, the brief points to the possibility that a lender could display a “Whites Only” sign or turn away Black consumers as they walk in the door. The FTC also argues that the district court’s ruling would have “profoundly negative consequences” for consumers, emboldening discriminatory lenders to openly discourage consumers from applying for loans. The Commission’s brief notes that the anti-discouragement rule-which has stood for nearly 50 years-is authorized by the plain language of ECOA, which mandates that regulators further ECOA’s “purpose” and prevent its “evasion.” In its brief, the FTC argues that the district court’s ruling was incorrect. ![]() The district court ruled that the anti-discouragement provision was invalid and that ECOA protects only those consumers who have already applied for credit. The CFPB alleged that the defendants took steps to discourage Black consumers from applying for loans, violating Regulation B’s anti-discouragement rule. Townstone Financial and Barry Sturner, relates to a Chicago-based mortgage lender and its owner, which the CFPB alleged violated Regulation B, the rule that implements ECOA. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit challenging a district court ruling that invalidated a key anti-discrimination rule in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The Federal Trade Commission filed a friend-of-the-court ( amicus) brief in the U.S. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |