A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Trade Commission relating to "Negative Option Rule".
- Sponsor
- Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 9, 2025
Bottom line
S.J. Res. 57 is a legislative attempt to block an FTC rule designed to regulate "negative option" marketing practices, effectively maintaining the status quo regarding these business models.
What it actually does
This joint resolution, introduced under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), seeks to nullify a final rule issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning "Negative Option Rule." If enacted, it would prevent the FTC's rule, published on November 15, 2024, from taking effect and would prohibit the agency from reissuing a substantially similar rule in the future without specific congressional authorization.
Proponents argue
Proponents of S.J. Res. 57 argue that the FTC's "Negative Option Rule" imposes undue regulatory burdens on businesses, stifles innovation, and potentially limits consumer choice by making it harder for companies to offer subscription services and automatic renewals. They contend that existing consumer protection laws are sufficient and that the FTC's rule oversteps its authority or is economically harmful.
Opponents contend
Opponents of S.J. Res. 57 (and proponents of the FTC rule) would argue that the FTC's "Negative Option Rule" is essential for protecting consumers from deceptive or unfair practices associated with subscription services, automatic renewals, and free trials that convert to paid memberships. They assert that the rule enhances transparency, empowers consumers to easily cancel unwanted subscriptions, and prevents businesses from exploiting confusing enrollment or cancellation processes.
The bill text is extremely short and straightforward, making it very accessible for any reader to understand its direct legislative action.
Section 1
Disapproval of FTC Negative Option Rule
This provision explicitly states that Congress disapproves of the Federal Trade Commission's rule titled "Negative Option Rule," which was published in the Federal Register on November 15, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 90476). By disapproving the rule, the resolution declares that the FTC's rule will have no legal effect. Furthermore, under the Congressional Review Act, if this resolution were to become law, the FTC would be barred from issuing any future rule that is "substantially the same" as the disapproved rule, unless specifically authorized by a subsequent act of Congress.
Supporters argue
Supporters of this provision argue that the FTC rule is an example of regulatory overreach, imposing unnecessary costs and restrictions on legitimate business practices. They believe that the market, combined with existing consumer protection laws, is sufficient to address any issues, and that the rule would stifle innovation and make it harder for businesses to offer convenient subscription models.
Critics contend
Opponents of this provision (and supporters of the FTC rule) contend that the rule is a vital step to protect consumers from deceptive "dark patterns" and predatory subscription practices, where companies make it difficult to cancel services or clearly disclose terms. They argue that without the rule, consumers will continue to be unfairly charged for services they no longer want or did not fully understand they were signing up for.
Tradeoffs
The provision highlights a tension between reducing regulatory burdens on businesses to foster economic activity and providing robust consumer protections against potentially deceptive marketing practices. It also reflects a broader debate about the appropriate scope of federal agency rulemaking versus congressional oversight.
The resolution, if enacted, not only nullifies the specific FTC rule but also prevents the FTC from issuing any future rule that is "substantially the same" as the disapproved rule, unless specifically authorized by a subsequent act of Congress.
Section 1 (via reference to 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for CRA resolutions, as the "substantially the same" clause is part of the underlying statute, not typically reiterated in the resolution itself. It's not evasive, but rather relies on existing legal framework.
Case for: Proponents of this aspect of the CRA argue it prevents agencies from simply reissuing a disapproved rule with minor tweaks, ensuring that congressional disapproval has lasting effect and truly curbs perceived regulatory overreach.
Case against: Critics argue that this "substantially the same" clause can unduly tie the hands of expert agencies, preventing them from adapting to new market conditions or consumer harms, even if they attempt to address congressional concerns in a revised rule.
Estimated impact: This provision has a significant, long-term impact on the FTC's ability to regulate negative option marketing, potentially for decades, without new legislative authority.