Oops, they did it again..but better!
While it is not uncommon for the FTC to drop a press release on a late Friday afternoon with the intention of the event avoiding the standard work-week news cycle, the folks over at 601 Pennsylvania pulled a new one today, posting a press release on its website without a corresponding email announcement, announcing that it had voted to extend the effective date of the Amended Negative Option Rule for 60 additional days, to July 14. Why not let the world know about this, FTC? Dontcha kind of think that people who have spent countless hours over the last few months preparing for the new Rule to come into effect would like to know this? Guess not.
A statement issued by the three sitting commissioners (all Rs) announcing the extension noted that the prior FTC administration had adopted, with no explanation, a two step roll out of the new rule, with a majority of the new requirements coming online on May 14. But that might not be enough time, the statement noted, and companies may need more time to come into compliance,
"Having conducted a fresh assessment of the burdens that forcing
compliance by this date would impose, the Commission has determined that the original deferral period insufficiently accounted for the complexity of compliance. To ensure ample time for companies to conform their conduct to the Rule, the Commission will exercise its enforcement discretion by further deferring the compliance deadline for 16 C.F.R. §§ 425.4–425.6 by sixty days."
Ok, more time to comply... that's awfully nice, but why just 60 days? Kinda random and not likely to move the needle for most companies that have been gearing up for this change since last November when the amended Rule was announced. But hey, 60 days is 60 days and we'll take it!
But then the statement closes with a total knuckleball that does nothing but confound and confuse,
"Starting July 14, 2025, regulated entities must be in compliance with the whole of the Rule because the Commission will begin enforcing it. Of course, if that enforcement experience exposes problems with the Rule, the Commission is open to amending the Rule to address any such problems."
Wait..what? First off, what's a "regulated entity?' We're not talking healthcare or financial services here..the Rule applies to all companies, regardless of industry. So that's an odd and interesting choice of words. Next, while the folks at the FTC have historically been (and still are) pretty savvy writers, the first sentence reads like a 5th grade paper on what I did this summer, "I went to the beach and it was good." (Sorry, we're sticklers for writing and this sentence just hit us hard.)
Last, and certainly not least, what in Sam Houston is the last sentence (and we're paraphrasing here) "if the enforcement experience exposes problems with the Rule, we might change it" intended to mean? "Enforcement experience?" Wha? "Exposes problems with the Rule?" Double wha?? Folks, we have absolutely no idea what any of this means except that there might have been an impromptu happy hour at 601 earlier today and that the Rule will in fact be going into effect, just 60 days later. And that's all we know.
Comments
Adin SolomonReply
Posted May 21, 2025 at 14:05:55
Seems like the FTC is saying to the targets of that enforcement that the FTC is open to changing the enforcement process and kicking complaints about the rule itself up the chain. I don’t know much about these releases but it seems surprisingly agreeable for a regulatory agency… Maybe it’s an admission that the rule is inherently complicated to enforce, or a nod to some executive branch shenanigans about choosing not to enforce rules the executive disagrees with
Leave a Comment