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''.
- Bill Number
- H.J.Res. 100
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Commerce
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-06-09: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Last Updated
- 2026-02-04T04:11:36Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 100) aims to block a new rule proposed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) called the "Negative Option Rule." It uses the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a law that lets Congress vote to stop certain federal agency rules from going into effect, treating the rule as if it never existed.
Key Provisions
- Disapproval Mechanism: The resolution formally disapproves the FTC's Negative Option Rule under the CRA (chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code), which allows Congress to review and overturn agency regulations submitted to it.
- Scope: Targets only this specific FTC rule, which addresses "negative option" practices—marketing tactics where consumers are automatically enrolled in subscriptions, trials, or purchases unless they actively opt out (e.g., free trials that convert to paid services without clear consent).
- Process: Introduced in the House of Representatives on June 9, 2025, by Ms. Lee of Florida, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce for review. If passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by the President (or overridden if vetoed), the rule cannot take effect.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Overturn of Agency Rule: This would prevent the FTC's Negative Option Rule from being implemented, effectively nullifying new requirements for clearer disclosures, easier cancellations, and bans on misleading tactics in negative option sales—changes the FTC intended to strengthen consumer protections under existing laws like the FTC Act.
- No Broader Alterations: The resolution does not amend the CRA itself or other FTC authority; it only targets this one rule, leaving prior negative option regulations (like those for credit cards or telemarketing) intact.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Limits the FTC's ability to enforce broader consumer protections against deceptive subscription practices, potentially requiring the agency to redirect resources to other priorities or pursue rules through alternative legal paths.
- On Citizens (Consumers): Could maintain the status quo for subscription-based services, where consumers might face fewer automatic safeguards against unwanted charges, potentially leading to more complaints or reliance on individual lawsuits rather than agency-wide rules.
- On Businesses: Benefits companies using negative option models (e.g., streaming services, gyms, or e-commerce) by avoiding stricter compliance costs, such as mandatory easy-cancel buttons or pre-enrollment disclosures, but may increase scrutiny from state attorneys general or private litigation.
- International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could indirectly affect U.S. companies with global operations by preserving flexibility in cross-border e-commerce practices.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC): Primary agency whose rulemaking authority is challenged, potentially weakening its role in consumer protection.
- Consumers: Individuals who sign up for services with automatic renewals, who may lose enhanced protections against surprise billing.
- Businesses and Industries: E-commerce, subscription services, and telemarketers that rely on negative options, who gain relief from new regulatory burdens.
- Congress: House members (especially on the Energy and Commerce Committee) and the broader legislative branch, exercising oversight over executive agency actions.
- State Governments: May see increased pressure to enact their own rules if the federal one is blocked.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Reinforces the CRA as a tool for congressional check on executive branch rulemaking, but success depends on timely submission of the rule to Congress (rules must be reviewed within 60 legislative days). If enacted, it prohibits the FTC from issuing a "substantially similar" rule without new congressional approval.
- Constitutional: Highlights separation of powers, with Congress asserting its legislative primacy over agency interpretations of statutes, potentially sparking debates on the non-delegation doctrine (limits on Congress delegating lawmaking to agencies).
- Political: Reflects partisan divides on regulation—often supported by business-friendly lawmakers to curb "overreach," while opposed by consumer advocates. As a 119th Congress (2025-2026) measure, it could influence midterm election dynamics around economic policy and consumer rights.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Recent Actions
- 2025-06-09: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 2025-06-09: Introduced in House
- 2025-06-09: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- 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". — issued 2025-06-09 — PDF (1 pages)