Americans lose hundreds yearly on subscriptions; now, a bipartisan bill targets ‘dark patterns’
Left for dead, Unsubscribe Act returns in new bipartisan bill
Americans are hemorrhaging hundreds of dollars annually on subscriptions they’ve forgotten about or can’t figure out how to cancel, prompting renewed bipartisan efforts in Congress to crack down on companies that make cancellation deliberately difficult.
California Democrat Mark Takano and Nevada Republican Mark Amodei are reintroducing the Unsubscribe Act, legislation that would prohibit the complex cancellation processes that have become a boiling point for consumers across generations and political affiliations.
The financial toll is significant. Surveys suggest the average American household wastes between $127 and $204 each year on unused subscriptions, with younger consumers hit hardest—Gen Z subscribers lose approximately $276 annually navigating multiple streaming platforms, apps and digital memberships.
“Cancelling a subscription should be just as easy as signing up for one,” Takano told the Guardian. “These marketing techniques rely on the fact that people are busy—that they’ll forget they entered a trial period.”
The hidden cost of convenience
The proliferation of subscription services has transformed how Americans consume everything from entertainment to software, but the business model’s convenience masks a costly trap. A $15 monthly subscription may seem manageable, but consumers juggling multiple services can easily lose over $1,000 annually on forgotten or unwanted memberships.
Takano argues the complexity isn’t accidental. “Companies can predict that a certain percentage of consumers will overlook the trial ending, and they profit from that,” he said. “Consumers often discover that cancelling requires many more steps than signing up—sometimes even mailing a physical letter.”
The legislation would require companies to obtain explicit consent before charging customers after free or reduced-price trials end, and mandate that cancellation processes be no more complicated than sign-up. It would also prohibit automatic enrollment in contracts and require sellers to periodically notify customers of charges and cancellation options.
Regulatory setback fuels legislative push
The congressional effort comes as regulatory protections remain in limbo. The Federal Trade Commission’s “click to cancel” rule—which would have required businesses to make cancellation as easy as enrollment—was overturned in July by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on procedural grounds. The court found the FTC had failed to produce a required economic impact analysis, though it did not rule on the merits of the consumer protection itself.
The FTC is now quietly soliciting public input on restoring the rule, publishing a request for comments in the Federal Register last month. Consumer groups petitioned the agency in November to reopen the rulemaking process, arguing the court’s decision addressed only procedural matters rather than the substance of the protections.
“The FTC’s rule was overturned on a technicality,” Takano said. “This bill makes the law clear to the courts and the business community: companies have to play fair.”
First Republican backing after years of effort
Takano has pushed versions of this legislation since 2017, but this marks the first time the House bill has drawn Republican support. A companion bill introduced in the Senate by Brian Schatz and John Kennedy has had bipartisan backing since 2021.
“This time, the bill has bipartisan support, and there’s interest across the aisle,” Takano said.
The proposed bill has drawn endorsements from consumer advocacy groups including the Consumer Federation of America, Public Citizen and the National Consumer League. But it faces opposition from powerful industry coalitions.
The Internet and Television Association, which represents major cable providers, previously argued the FTC’s click-to-cancel rule could “burden, confuse, and harm consumers.” The US Chamber of Commerce and trade groups representing telecoms, security systems and online advertisers challenged the original rule in court, asserting regulators had exceeded their authority.
Enforcement continues despite setback
The FTC under the Trump administration has continued pursuing subscription-related enforcement actions under other authorities since the July court ruling. In September, the agency secured a $7.5 million settlement with an education technology provider over cancellation practices under the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act.
With regulatory protections stalled and industry opposition entrenched, the legislative route may offer consumers’ best hope for relief from what advocacy groups describe as deliberately deceptive practices designed to extract money from busy, distracted Americans.