The FTC click-to-cancel rule is the Federal Trade Commission's 2024 rewrite of its Negative Option Rule, which would have required any business selling a subscription or other recurring-charge plan to make canceling as easy as signing up. A federal appeals court vacated the rule in July 2025 before it took effect, so subscribers today rely on an older federal statute and on state laws instead.
Quick Answer
The click-to-cancel rule was a set of amendments to the FTC's Negative Option Rule, adopted on October 16, 2024. It would have applied to nearly every subscription, membership, auto-renewal and free-trial-to-paid offer sold in any medium, requiring clear disclosure of the terms, separate consent to the recurring charge, and a cancellation method at least as easy as the sign-up. On July 8, 2025, six days before its main provisions were due to take effect, the Eighth Circuit vacated the whole rule because the FTC had skipped a required preliminary regulatory analysis. The FTC restarted the process in March 2026, but no new rule exists yet. Hard-to-cancel practices are still policed under the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA), Section 5 of the FTC Act and state automatic renewal laws.
On this page
What the Rule Would Have Required
A negative option is any arrangement in which a customer's silence or failure to cancel is treated as permission to keep charging: a monthly membership, an annual renewal, a free trial that converts to paid, a subscribe-and-save shipment. The FTC's original Negative Option Rule dated to 1973 and covered only a narrow category of prenotification plans, the book-of-the-month-club model. The 2024 amendments, voted 3–2 and published in the Federal Register on November 15, 2024, extended it to almost every negative option offer, whether sold online, by phone, in person or by mail, and to business-to-business sales as well as consumer ones.The final rule rested on four requirements:
• No misrepresentations. A seller could not misrepresent any material fact while marketing a negative option, including the cost, the terms or how to cancel.
• Clear disclosures. Before collecting billing information, the seller had to disclose that charges would recur unless the consumer canceled, the amount and frequency of the charges, the deadline to avoid them and how to cancel.
• Separate consent. The seller had to obtain the consumer's express informed consent to the negative option feature on its own, apart from the rest of the purchase, and keep proof of it.
• Simple cancellation. Cancellation had to be at least as easy as enrollment and available through the same medium. A consumer who signed up online had to be able to cancel online, without talking to a live agent or chatbot, and a consumer who signed up in person had to be offered cancellation online or by phone where feasible, not only at the counter.
The FTC dropped two parts of its 2023 proposal before finalizing: an annual reminder requirement and a rule that sellers get consent before pitching a save offer to someone trying to cancel.
Why the Eighth Circuit Vacated It
The rule took effect on January 14, 2025, but most of its requirements carried a later compliance date, which the FTC pushed from May 14 to July 14, 2025. Trade groups representing cable operators, advertisers, franchisors and others petitioned for review in several circuits, and the challenges were consolidated in the Eighth Circuit as Custom Communications, Inc. v. FTC.On July 8, 2025, the court vacated the rule in full. It did not decide whether click-to-cancel requirements are a good idea or within the FTC's power. It held that the process was defective: once an administrative law judge found the rule's annual economic effect would exceed $100 million, the FTC Act required the agency to publish a preliminary regulatory analysis for public comment before finalizing, and the FTC had not done so. Because the court threw out the entire rule, none of its provisions, including the misrepresentation ban and the disclosure requirements, ever became enforceable.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What Protects Subscribers Without It
The vacatur removed a new rule, not the older laws the rule was built on top of.• ROSCA, the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act of 2010, already requires anyone selling a negative option over the internet to disclose the material terms before taking billing information, get express informed consent, and provide a simple mechanism to stop recurring charges. It covers only online sales, which is the gap the click-to-cancel rule would have closed for phone, in-person and mail sign-ups.
• Section 5 of the FTC Act bars unfair or deceptive acts or practices in any sales channel. The FTC has used it to challenge cancellation processes it considers unfairly burdensome, including in person.
• State automatic renewal laws. California's Automatic Renewal Law requires online cancellation for online sign-ups and, since July 1, 2025, a click-to-cancel button beside any retention offer. New York amended its law to require a cancellation method as easy as sign-up, effective November 5, 2025, and New York City's municipal click-to-cancel rule takes effect October 1, 2026. Many other states have their own versions.
The difference that matters most to a consumer: neither ROSCA nor an FTC rule lets an individual sue. Refunds from federal cases come through FTC settlements and judgments. Private subscription class actions are brought under state automatic renewal laws and consumer-protection statutes such as California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
The Rule in FTC Cases: LA Fitness
The FTC's suit against the operators of LA Fitness shows how the agency proceeds without the rule. On August 20, 2025, six weeks after the vacatur, the Commission sued Fitness International, LLC and Fitness & Sports Clubs, LLC in the Central District of California (FTC v. Fitness International, LLC, No. 8:25-cv-01841), under Section 5 and ROSCA. The companies run LA Fitness, Esporta Fitness, City Sports Club and Club Studio, with more than 600 locations and over 3.7 million members.The FTC alleges that for years members could cancel only in person with one designated employee, often available mainly during working hours, or by mailing a printed form, with certified or registered mail recommended; that staff were trained to refuse cancellation by phone or email; and that add-on services were not clearly disclosed as separately cancelable. The companies deny the allegations, have said they launched an online cancellation option well before the rule's deadline, and argue that ROSCA covers online retail transactions, not gym memberships sold at a club.
The FTC filed an amended complaint on December 23, 2025. The defendants moved to dismiss it on January 16, 2026, and the court heard the motion on April 24, 2026; press reports describe a tentative ruling denying dismissal. The case remains pending, the allegations are unproven, and there is no settlement or refund program.
A separate 2024 case against the same company, United States v. Fitness International, LLC, No. 8:24-cv-02172, was a Justice Department disability-access suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, not a cancellation case. The court dismissed that complaint with leave to amend on June 6, 2025, and the government voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on July 3, 2025.
What Happens Next
The FTC sent a draft advance notice of proposed rulemaking to the Office of Management and Budget in January 2026, announced it on March 11, 2026, and collected public comments through April 13, 2026. The notice asks whether the agency should amend the existing Negative Option Rule, whether to readopt any of the vacated provisions, and whether non-regulatory approaches would work instead. An advance notice is the first step: the FTC would still need to publish a proposed rule, a preliminary regulatory analysis and a final rule, so any renewed federal click-to-cancel requirement is likely well over a year away and its scope is open.In the meantime, a subscriber stuck in a cancellation loop has more leverage from state law than from federal rules. Canceling in writing, keeping screenshots of every step, and disputing charges that continue after a confirmed cancellation matter more than any single rule.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the FTC click-to-cancel rule in effect?
No. The Eighth Circuit vacated the entire rule on July 8, 2025, days before its main provisions were due to take effect on July 14, 2025. The FTC began a new rulemaking in March 2026 with an advance notice asking for public comment, but as of September 2026 no replacement rule has been proposed or adopted.
If the rule was vacated, can the FTC still act against hard-to-cancel subscriptions?
Yes. The Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act, a 2010 statute, already requires online sellers of recurring-charge offers to provide a simple way to stop the charges, and Section 5 of the FTC Act bars unfair or deceptive practices. The FTC has continued to sue under both, including its August 2025 case against the operators of LA Fitness.
Can I sue a company for violating the click-to-cancel rule?
No. The rule is not in force, and even when FTC rules are in force consumers cannot sue under them directly. Private subscription class actions are brought under state laws instead, such as California's Automatic Renewal Law, state consumer-protection statutes and unfair-competition laws.
Do any click-to-cancel requirements apply right now?
Some state and local laws impose them. California has required online cancellation for online sign-ups for years, and since July 1, 2025 a business that shows a retention offer during an online cancellation must display a click-to-cancel button beside it. New York amended its automatic renewal law effective November 5, 2025, and New York City adopted a municipal click-to-cancel rule taking effect October 1, 2026.
Sources
• Federal Trade Commission, Negative Option Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 90476 (November 15, 2024), amending 16 C.F.R. Part 425.• Custom Communications, Inc. v. FTC, No. 24-3137 (8th Cir. July 8, 2025) (vacating the rule).
• Federal Trade Commission, advance notice of proposed rulemaking on the Negative Option Rule (March 11, 2026) and Federal Register notice (March 13, 2026).
• Federal Trade Commission, FTC Sues LA Fitness for Making it Difficult for Consumers to Cancel Gym Memberships (August 20, 2025), and Semiannual Federal Court Litigation Status Report (June 2026).
• United States v. Fitness International, LLC, No. 8:24-cv-02172 (C.D. Cal.), complaint (October 8, 2024), order granting motion to dismiss (June 6, 2025) and notice of voluntary dismissal (July 3, 2025).
• Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 8401–8405; Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45.
