Skip to content
Coverage

Subscriptions

Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (federal negative-option rules)

NationalUSRead off primary law

United States (federal)

Rule id
subscription.us-rosca
Version
1.1.0
In force from
December 29, 2010
Last read against its sources
August 5, 2026
Countries bound
United States

In plain language

What this regime says.

The Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act requires an online seller using a negative-option feature to disclose all material terms clearly before it takes your card details, to obtain your express informed consent, and to give you a simple way to stop recurring charges. The FTC's separate "click-to-cancel" rule was vacated by the Eighth Circuit on 8 July 2025 and, as at August 2026, has not been replaced — so ROSCA and state automatic-renewal laws are what is left.

Who is covered

Consumers in the United States who signed up online to something that renews automatically. Sign-ups by phone, post or in person are outside ROSCA but are usually inside a state automatic-renewal statute.

What you get

ROSCA itself gives no private right of action. It gives you the argument: the refund comes from the merchant, from a card dispute against the post-cancellation charges, from your state statute, or from an FTC or state AG redress fund.

Where claims go wrong

  • Citing the click-to-cancel rule. It was vacated on 8 July 2025 and no replacement is in force.
  • Suing under ROSCA. There is no private right of action — use your state statute instead.
  • Cancelling only with the merchant. Revoke the payment authority with your bank too.
  • Missing the card-dispute deadlines, which are the only genuinely fatal ones here.
  • Not screenshotting the sign-up and cancellation flow before the merchant changes it.
The official claim route

Authority

Every citation,
with its pinpoint.

A claim that cites “EU law” gets filed. A claim that cites Article 7(1)(c) gets answered. These are the exact coordinates this entry rests on.
  1. Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 8401-8405Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (Pub. L. 111-345)§ 8403 — no charge through a negative option feature in an internet transaction unless the seller clearly and conspicuously discloses all material terms before obtaining billing information, obtains express informed consent, and provides simple mechanisms to stop recurring charges
  2. 15 U.S.C. § 8404Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act§ 8404(a) — a violation is treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the FTC Act; § 8404(d) — enforcement by State attorneys general
  3. Federal Trade Commission Act § 5, 15 U.S.C. § 45Federal Trade Commission Act§ 5(a) — unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; § 5(m)(1)(A) — civil penalties for knowing violations of a rule
  4. Custom Communications, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (8th Cir., 8 July 2025)United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitVacated the FTC's amended Negative Option Rule (16 CFR Part 425) in its entirety for failure to issue the preliminary regulatory analysis required by 15 U.S.C. § 57b-3
  5. FTC advance notice of proposed rulemaking, Negative Option Rule (published 13 March 2026)Federal Trade Commission, 16 CFR Part 425 — advance notice of proposed rulemakingURL verified 2026-08-05Published in the Federal Register on 13 March 2026; comment period closed 13 April 2026. No proposed or final replacement rule as at 5 August 2026.

Sources

Where a figure is indexed, converted or published by a regulator rather than fixed in the instrument, the provenance is recorded separately. Anything marked as a modelled estimate is exactly that — a model, not a statutory number.

What it imposes

Clocks, defences and the ladder.

A rule module builds these while it evaluates, because a limitation period depends on which forum is open to you. What follows is the structure this regime produces — deliberately with no dates and no figures, because those belong to your facts rather than to the law.

The clocks it starts

  • Card dispute deadline (this is the one that actually bites)ROSCA imposes no deadline on you because it gives you nothing to file. The deadline that matters is the card one: 60 days from the statement showing the charge for a Regulation Z billing-error notice or a Regulation E notice of error, and around 120 days for a network chargeback. Deal with the card first and the merchant second.Notice period
  • FTC § 19 consumer redress (3 years)Where the FTC obtains redress for a rule violation under 15 U.S.C. § 57b, § 57b(d) bars an action brought more than three years after the violation. This is the Commission's deadline rather than yours, but it explains why complaining early matters: your complaint is what puts your transaction inside a future redress fund.Federal Trade Commission Act § 19, 15 U.S.C. § 57b — § 57b — consumer redress for rule violations, subject to a three-year limitation in § 57b(d)Limitation period

What it entitles you to, beyond money

  • Immediate cancellation and no further charges§ 8403(3) requires a simple mechanism to stop recurring charges. Send a dated written cancellation, keep proof of delivery, and state that any further charge is unauthorised. That sentence is what turns the next debit into a card-dispute matter.§ 8403 — no charge through a negative option feature in an internet transaction unless the seller clearly and conspicuously discloses all material terms before obtaining billing information, obtains express informed consent, and provides simple mechanisms to stop recurring charges
  • Revoke the payment authority with your bank as well as the merchantDo not rely on the merchant. On a debit card, 12 CFR § 1005.10(c) gives you a stop-payment right on a preauthorised transfer with three business days' notice. On a credit card, ask the issuer to revoke the continuous payment authority and to block the merchant identifier.
  • Preserve the sign-up and cancellation flowScreenshot the checkout page, the cancellation path and any retention screens, with dates. A ROSCA case turns on what the flow looked like, and merchants change their flows constantly — the FTC's own complaints are built on exactly these screenshots.

What the other side will say

Each of these is a refusal this regime lets a counterparty attempt, paired with the answer to it. Reading them before you write is worth more than any amount of polish on the letter itself.

"You agreed to the terms at sign-up"

high likelihood

The merchant points to a terms-of-service checkbox or a linked policy.

What answers it

§ 8403(1) requires the material terms of the negative-option feature to be disclosed clearly and conspicuously and before billing information is obtained, and § 8403(2) requires express informed consent to the charge. Terms buried behind a hyperlink, or presented after the card details are taken, satisfy neither. Ask the merchant to produce a screenshot of the flow as it appeared on your sign-up date.

Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 8401-8405 — § 8403 — no charge through a negative option feature in an internet transaction unless the seller clearly and conspicuously discloses all material terms before obtaining billing information, obtains express informed consent, and provides simple mechanisms to stop recurring charges

"You cancelled after the renewal date"

high likelihood

The merchant says the renewal had already processed and refuses a refund.

What answers it

The question is whether the cancellation mechanism was simple, not whether you found your way through it in time. If cancellation required a phone call during business hours, or was hidden behind a retention flow, the renewal is a consequence of the § 8403(3) failure. State statutes are stronger still: several require a renewal reminder before the charge, and where one was not sent the charge is voidable.

Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 8401-8405 — § 8403 — no charge through a negative option feature in an internet transaction unless the seller clearly and conspicuously discloses all material terms before obtaining billing information, obtains express informed consent, and provides simple mechanisms to stop recurring charges

"The click-to-cancel rule was struck down, so we can make cancellation as hard as we like"

medium likelihood

The merchant correctly notes that the FTC rule was vacated and treats that as removing the obligation.

What answers it

The vacatur removed the rule, not the statute. § 8403(3) has required simple mechanisms to stop recurring charges since 2010 and was untouched by Custom Communications, which turned on a missing regulatory analysis and never reached the merits. Beyond that, most state automatic-renewal statutes now impose their own cancellation requirements, and California's apply to any contract entered into, amended or extended on or after 1 July 2025.

Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 8401-8405 — § 8403 — no charge through a negative option feature in an internet transaction unless the seller clearly and conspicuously discloses all material terms before obtaining billing information, obtains express informed consent, and provides simple mechanisms to stop recurring charges

"ROSCA does not give you a right to sue"

medium likelihood

The merchant, correctly, points out that § 8404 is enforced by the FTC and state AGs only.

What answers it

True and beside the point. The refund demand does not depend on ROSCA — it rests on the charges being unauthorised once authority was withdrawn, on your state automatic-renewal statute, and on your state consumer-protection act. ROSCA is what makes the FTC and state AG complaints bite, and merchants settle to avoid those.

15 U.S.C. § 8404 — § 8404(a) — a violation is treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the FTC Act; § 8404(d) — enforcement by State attorneys general

Where to take it next

  1. Written cancellation and refund demand to the merchantCancel in writing, demand refund of every charge taken after the cancellation date, and cite § 8403(3) by name. Say that further charges will be treated as unauthorised and disputed with the card issuer. Send it to a real address, not just a support ticket.Claim directtypically 14 days
  2. Dispute the charges with your card issuerThis is the step that recovers money. On a credit card, a written billing-error notice under 12 CFR § 1026.13 within 60 days of the statement; on a debit card, a notice of error under 12 CFR § 1005.11 with a demand for provisional credit within 10 business days. Ask for the continuous payment authority to be cancelled at the same time.Claim directtypically 30 days
  3. Report to the FTCReportFraud.ftc.gov takes about five minutes. Individual reports are what build the pattern the Commission needs, and being on record is what puts you in a redress fund if an enforcement action follows. The FTC has continued to bring ROSCA cases throughout the period since the rule was vacated.Regulatorofficial page
  4. Your state attorney general§ 8404(d) gives state attorneys general their own ROSCA enforcement power, and most states also have an automatic-renewal statute and an unfair-and-deceptive-practices act. State AG consumer divisions frequently obtain refunds through informal mediation long before any lawsuit.Regulatortypically 60 days
  5. Small claims under your state statuteROSCA gives you no private action, but most state automatic-renewal and consumer-protection statutes do — several with statutory minimum damages and attorney's fees, and California with a remedy that treats the goods as an unconditional gift. See the state results for the version that applies to you.Small claimstypically 120 days

Documents

What this regime can produce.

Every one of these is a document you send yourself, in your own name. Duesday never writes to anybody on your behalf and is never anyone’s agent.

The same claim type elsewhere

EU Consumer Rights Directive — withdrawal, order-button and inertia-selling rulesEUSupranational — 30 countriesDirective 2011/83/EU (Consumer Rights Directive)Confidence: highNorway — Angrerettloven right of withdrawalNONational — NorwayLov om opplysningsplikt og angrerett (angrerettloven), LOV-2014-06-20-27Confidence: highRussia — Consumer Rights Protection Law arts. 26.1 and 32RUNational — RussiaЗакон РФ от 07.02.1992 № 2300-1 «О защите прав потребителей», ст. 32Confidence: mediumSwitzerland — Code of Obligations right of revocation (and the online gap)CHNational — SwitzerlandSwiss Code of Obligations, arts. 40a–40fConfidence: mediumTürkiye — Law 6502 distance contracts and the Subscription Contracts RegulationTRNational — TürkiyeTüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun No. 6502, arts. 48 and 52Confidence: mediumUK Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 (and the not-yet-commenced DMCCA subscription regime)GBNational — United KingdomConsumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/3134)Confidence: highCalifornia Automatic Renewal Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17600-17606, as amended by AB 2863)US-CASub-national — United StatesCalifornia Business and Professions Code §§ 17600-17606Confidence: highCanada — provincial consumer protection acts and the federal Competition ActCANational — CanadaLoi sur la protection du consommateur, RLRQ c. P-40.1 (Quebec)Confidence: medium

Other rights in the same countries

Alabama security deposit return — Ala. Code § 35-9A-201US-ALSub-national — United StatesAla. Code § 35-9A-201Confidence: mediumAlabama unclaimed property — Ala. Code §§ 35-12-70 to 35-12-99US-ALSub-national — United StatesAla. Code §§ 35-12-70 to 35-12-99Confidence: mediumAlaska security deposit return — Alaska Stat. § 34.03.070US-AKSub-national — United StatesAlaska Stat. § 34.03.070Confidence: mediumAlaska unclaimed property — Alaska Stat. §§ 34.45.110–34.45.780US-AKSub-national — United StatesAlaska Stat. §§ 34.45.110–34.45.780Confidence: mediumArizona security deposit return — A.R.S. § 33-1321US-AZSub-national — United StatesA.R.S. § 33-1321Confidence: highArizona unclaimed property — Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-301 to 44-341US-AZSub-national — United StatesAriz. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-301 to 44-341Confidence: mediumArizona surprise out-of-network bill dispute resolution (A.R.S. § 20-3111 et seq.)US-AZSub-national — United StatesA.R.S. § 20-3111 et seq.Confidence: mediumArkansas security deposit return — Ark. Code Ann. § 18-16-306US-ARSub-national — United StatesArk. Code Ann. § 18-16-306Confidence: medium

Does this one reach your facts?

The engine runs every regime that could apply at once and reconciles them, rather than making you guess which page to read.

Run your factsBack to the catalogue

Not a law firm. Not legal advice. You send it yourself. This page describes a law; it is not advice about your situation and no outcome is promised.