A Practical Answer to the Title Question

The subject is the shape of U.S. subscription-cancellation law after the Eighth Circuit vacated the FTC’s 2024 Negative Option Rule. The answer has three layers: what remains operative, what the 2024 rule would have required but no longer supplies as a nationwide standard, and what the FTC’s 2026 inquiry may still produce. Holding those layers apart gives readers a practical way to evaluate a recurring-charge problem without treating the word “vacated” as either a repeal of all protections or proof that a universal one-click mandate remains.

The answer in three layers

First layer: the protections that remain

The March 2026 FTC advance notice of proposed rulemaking states that vacatur reinstated the prior version of the Negative Option Rule, first promulgated in 1973. That rule is specific but narrow. It applies to prenotification plans for goods, where a seller sends periodic notices and ships and charges for a selection if the customer does not reject it. It requires clear and conspicuous disclosure of the plan’s basic terms, including how to reject a selection, minimum purchase obligations, cancellation rights, relevant shipping charges, the rejection period, return-credit treatment, and the frequency of notices. It also addresses rejection instructions and qualifying written cancellation requests.

That rule is not a general law of modern subscriptions. It does not, by itself, supply a universal framework for automatic renewals, continuity services, free-trial conversions, or digital memberships. The restored rule’s narrowness is the first reason the post-vacatur answer cannot be reduced to “the old rule is back, so nothing changed.” The old rule is back as a limited authority, while the market practices that motivated the 2024 amendment remain broader than its text.

Section 5 of the FTC Act continues to supply a wider foundation. It prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices. In the negative-option context, the FTC has described the relevant principles as clear disclosure of material terms before agreement, consumer consent, no material misrepresentation, functioning cancellation procedures, and no unreasonable barriers to cancellation. Courts and the FTC have also treated billing without express informed consent as potentially unfair.

Section 5 is important precisely because it is not a fixed cancellation checklist. Its application depends on the claims made, the advertisement’s overall impression, what consumers are likely to understand, and the seller’s practices. A claim that a trial is free, a promise that a customer can cancel at any time, or a presentation that conceals the recurring nature of the charge may matter because it changes the customer’s decision. Whether a particular practice violates section 5 still requires the facts of the transaction and the relevant legal analysis. The absence of a detailed federal “click-to-cancel” rule does not make deception or unauthorized billing safe.

ROSCA adds more specific requirements for online negative-option transactions. It generally requires clear and conspicuous disclosure of all material terms before the seller obtains billing information, express informed consent before charging, and simple mechanisms for stopping recurring charges. It also addresses certain post-transaction third-party sellers and the transfer of billing information. But ROSCA does not spell out every feature of a simple cancellation process. It is an online baseline, not a complete answer to every question about button placement, identity verification, waiting time, or interface design.

The Telemarketing Sales Rule fills a different lane. It applies to negative-option offers made over the telephone and requires disclosure of material terms, the need for affirmative action to avoid charges, when charges will be submitted, and the steps needed to avoid them. It also includes payment-authorization requirements and restrictions on certain payment methods. EFTA addresses recurring charges to debit cards or bank accounts without written authorization. The Unordered Merchandise Statute addresses mailing unordered merchandise or a bill for it. State laws may add automatic-renewal or negative-option requirements of their own.

The operative baseline is therefore layered by plan, medium, conduct, payment method, and jurisdiction. An online trial may raise ROSCA and section 5 questions. A telephone renewal may also implicate the TSR. An in-person membership may depend more heavily on section 5 and state law, with EFTA relevant if the payment method fits. A mailed physical offer may implicate the 1973 rule if it is a prenotification plan, or postal law if the shipment is unordered. These are general classification paths, not conclusions about any individual contract.

Second layer: the 2024 standard that is no longer operative

The 2024 amendment attempted to make those layers more consistent.