With contributions from Aurelia Voltairine
In its response to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on negative option marketing, 91Ώμ»ξΑΦ highlights the central role subscription-based services play in today’s digital economy and urges policymakers to avoid imposing broad new rules that could undermine their value to both consumers and businesses.
The FTC ANPRM on Negative Option Marketing
The FTC public input on ways to improve the regulation of “negative option” marketing so that subscription practices remain transparent, fair, and easy for consumers to manage.
The Commission negative option marketing as “any type of sales term or condition that allows a seller to interpret a customer's silence, or failure to take an affirmative action, as acceptance of an offer.” Negative option features such as automatic renewal have become an important part of subscription services across different sectors. Because these models differ widely across and within industries, policymakers should avoid treating all subscription services as presenting the same regulatory concerns.
The Commission’s notes that such practices can provide substantial benefits for sellers and consumers, but also that there are instances of consumer harm that warrant further examination. The ANPRM follows earlier efforts to address cancellation practices, including the previous Commission’s “Click-to-Cancel” rule, which was vacated by the Eighth Circuit in July 2025 on procedural grounds.
Tech sector subscriptions provide significant value to consumers and businesses
As the premier advocate for the technology sector, 91Ώμ»ξΑΦ’s comments to the ANPRM outline how subscription-based technology services deliver significant benefits to both consumers and businesses. In fact, demonstrates strong consumer familiarity with and support for subscription models.
The findings show that American consumers value and understand subscription-based models because they enable cost-effective and flexible access to content and services. Most Americans (58%) prefer subscriptions to one-time purchases due to lower upfront costs and ongoing access to services. U.S. consumers also strongly value flexibility (93%) and pricing options that accommodate different budgets (92%).
When cancelling subscriptions, consumers consistently prioritize ease of use and transparency. Most respondents (88%) want straightforward cancellation tools, while 83% want clear information about what features, storage, or content they may lose before ending a service.
Consumers today are especially familiar with subscription offerings and recurring billing in the online environment. Most consumers (78%) strategically use subscription sign-ups and cancellations to maximize savings and take advantage of discount offerings when they begin the cancellation process. Such activity is becoming a widely understood and actively managed consumer practice, particularly for digital services.
Technology companies support clear, flexible and consumer-friendly subscription practices, including transparent disclosures, simple cancellation methods, and tools that allow users to further tailor their services.
Subscription models are also critical to different kinds of business-to-business (B2B) transactions in the technology sector. B2B subscription models, for example in enterprise software or cloud service markets, primarily focus on high-value, long-term, negotiated contracts that often involve complex sales cycles and multiple stakeholders. Policymakers should therefore avoid applying consumer-focused obligations to complex B2B environments where market dynamics differ substantially.
Existing consumer protection authorities are comprehensive and sufficient
Existing laws such as Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA) already provide robust tools to address deceptive or unfair subscription practices. ROSCA, in particular, already requires online subscription providers to be transparent, obtain a customer’s express affirmative consent, and provide a simple cancellation mechanism. The Commission continues to robustly enforce these rules to address perceived subscription-related consumer harms as they arise.
also found that less than a quarter (24%) of American consumers say that government intervention is needed in this space, compared to the majority (70%) who say that consumers are best equipped to make purchasing decisions.
The creation of a further set of market-wide rules would therefore be a disproportionate means to address the risks identified in the ANPRM and would risk undermining the flexibility and value that subscription services provide. 91Ώμ»ξΑΦ supports the Commission’s efforts to understand evolving industry subscription practices and ensure the regulatory landscape works for consumers and businesses. But it should focus on avoiding imposing a new layer of market-wide regulation and instead rely on existing enforcement authorities while separately pursuing additional consumer and business education measures in this space.