Fixing the Subscription Trap
The FTC’s Negative Option Rule do-over – and what’s at stake.
Sliwa et al. v. Sezzle Inc.
22-cv-3055, C.D. Cal.
(May 2022)
Sliwa et al. v. Sezzle Inc.
22-cv-6093, C.D. Cal.
(July 2022)
Sezzle’s Buy Now, Pay Later services
Misleadingly marketing that Sezzle is a free service with no fees, interest or other catches without adequately warning users of the risk that banks processing Sezzle payments will charge them multiple overdraft fees
Sliwa Case (No. 22-cv-3055): Voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled.
Sliwa Case (No. 22-cv-6093): Settled
(Voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled.)
The FTC’s Negative Option Rule do-over – and what’s at stake.
Be wary of questionable and deceptive claims in origin stories.
Mounting lawsuits accuse Meta of breaking privacy promises.
Breaking down the fine print of this March Madness commercial.
Advertised $19.99 price deserves an official review.