State Auto-Renewal Laws 2026: After Click-to-Cancel

On July 8, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the Federal Trade Commission's so-called "Click-to-Cancel" Rule in Custom Communications, Inc. v. FTC, No. 24-3137 — striking down what would have been the strongest federal subscription-cancellation protection in U.S. history. Seven months later, on February 12, 2026, the FTC formally restored the much narrower pre-2024 "Prenotification Negative Option Plans" rule (91 Fed. Reg. 6507), which only covers a handful of book-of-the-month-style clubs. As of May 2026, the only meaningful federal protection that remains is the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 8401–8405) — and that statute leaves the heavy lifting to state law. This is the 2026 plain-English guide to what your state actually requires, with every operative provision quoted verbatim from the official state code, plus a step-by-step playbook for invoking those rights against a company that refuses to let you cancel.

Table of Contents

1. TL;DR: The 2026 Subscription-Cancellation Landscape
2. What Happened: The Eighth Circuit Vacated the FTC Rule
3. The Federal Statute That Still Applies: ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8403
4. What the FTC Did Next: 91 Fed. Reg. 6507
5. California: Bus. & Prof. Code § 17602 (The Strongest State ARL)
6. Vermont: 9 V.S.A. § 2454a (Online-Acceptance, Online-Cancellation)
7. Oregon: ORS 646A.295 (The "Unconditional Gift" Remedy)
8. New York, Illinois, DC, and Other ARL States — Quick Reference
9. Side-by-Side: What Your State Requires
10. The Five Things Every State ARL Has in Common
11. How to Invoke Your State ARL: Step-by-Step Playbook
12. The Sample Demand Letter That Works
13. Common Merchant Tactics — and How State Law Treats Them
14. How State ARLs Interact With ROSCA and the FTC Act § 5
15. Where Things Are Headed: 2026 Enforcement Trends
16. How Purchy Helps You Catch Auto-Renewals Before You Are Charged
17. Frequently Asked Questions
18. The Bottom Line

TL;DR: The 2026 Subscription-Cancellation Landscape

Question	Answer as of May 2026
Is the FTC "Click-to-Cancel" Rule in effect?	No. The Eighth Circuit vacated it in its entirety on July 8, 2025.
Is there any federal subscription-cancellation law?	Yes — but narrow. ROSCA (15 U.S.C. § 8403) requires "simple mechanisms" to stop recurring charges initiated on the Internet, plus the pre-2024 Prenotification Negative Option Plans Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 425), which only covers a sliver of clubs.
Which state has the strongest ARL?	California (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17600–17606). It requires affirmative consent, online-only cancellation for online sign-ups, a toll-free or e-mail cancellation channel, and pre-renewal notice for free trials longer than 31 days.
Which states have any ARL?	At least 25, including CA, NY, IL, VT, OR, CO, MD, MN, TN, NC, DC, DE, FL, HI, LA, ME, NC, ND, OK, SC, SD, UT, VA, WA, and WY. Coverage and remedies vary widely.
What happens if I cancel and the company keeps charging me?	Most state ARLs make the violation an unfair or deceptive act under the state's UDAP statute, which typically allows actual damages, statutory damages, attorney's fees, and (in some states) treble damages or a private right of action.
What can I do right now if a merchant is making cancellation hard?	Send a written demand citing your state's ARL section (sample letter below), then dispute the charge with your card issuer under Reg Z (credit) or Reg E (debit), and file a complaint with your state Attorney General.

What Happened: The Eighth Circuit Vacated the FTC Rule

For two years, the FTC's "Click-to-Cancel" Rule — formally the Negative Option Rule, finalized at 89 Fed. Reg. 90,476 on November 15, 2024 — was on track to become the single most important federal subscription-cancellation law of the digital era. The rule would have applied to virtually every recurring-billing relationship in the U.S. and required, among other things, that any subscription accepted online must be cancellable online with no more steps than were required to sign up.

It never took effect. Industry petitioners — led by Custom Communications, Inc. (operating as Custom Alarm) and joined by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Electronic Security Association, Interactive Advertising Bureau, NCTA, Michigan Press Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business — filed petitions for review in multiple circuits, which were consolidated in the Eighth Circuit. Amicus briefs in support of vacatur came from the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, Consumer Credit Industry Association, Health & Fitness Association, International Franchise Association, National Association of Spa Franchises, and the Service Contract Industry Council; amicus briefs in support of the FTC came from a coalition of consumer-law professors and consumer-protection organizations.

On July 8, 2025, a three-judge panel (Loken, Erickson, and Kobes, JJ.) issued a unanimous per curiam opinion. The court's holding was procedural, not substantive: the FTC had estimated that the rule's annual economic impact would exceed $100 million, which under Section 22(b)(1) of the FTC Act triggers a statutory requirement to publish a "preliminary regulatory analysis." The FTC declined to do one, asserting that the agency's earlier internal estimate (below the threshold) controlled. The Eighth Circuit disagreed:

"We grant the petitions for review and vacate the Rule."
— Custom Communications, Inc. v. FTC, No. 24-3137 (8th Cir. July 8, 2025) (per curiam)

"Vacate" is the strongest possible disposition. The rule is not "paused" or "remanded" or "stayed pending further proceedings" — it is gone, with no force or effect anywhere in the United States. The FTC could in theory begin a new rulemaking and do the regulatory analysis properly this time, but that process would take years, and as the next section explains, the agency has signaled the opposite direction.

The Federal Statute That Still Applies: ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8403

What remains in federal law? The Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA), enacted in 2010 and codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 8401–8405. ROSCA is a statute, not a regulation — Congress passed it, the FTC enforces it, and the Eighth Circuit's ruling does not touch it. The operative provision is § 8403, which makes it unlawful to charge a consumer through a "negative option feature" on the Internet unless three conditions are met. The Cornell Legal Information Institute's verbatim text:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to charge or attempt to charge any consumer for any goods or services sold in a transaction effected on the Internet through a negative option feature . . . unless the person —
(1) provides text that clearly and conspicuously discloses all material terms of the transaction before obtaining the consumer's billing information;
(2) obtains a consumer's express informed consent before charging the consumer's credit card, debit card, bank account, or other financial account for products or services through such transaction; and
(3) provides simple mechanisms for a consumer to stop recurring charges from being placed on the consumer's credit card, debit card, bank account, or other financial account."
— 15 U.S.C. § 8403

That third element — "simple mechanisms . . . to stop recurring charges" — is the federal floor under your subscription. It is intentionally vague (Congress did not define "simple"), and the FTC has historically enforced it via consent decrees and § 5 unfair-or-deceptive-acts-or-practices actions rather than detailed implementing rules. But it is binding nationwide federal law, and a private cause of action exists in many circuits through state UDAP statutes that incorporate FTC standards.

What the FTC Did Next: 91 Fed. Reg. 6507

On February 12, 2026 — seven months after the Eighth Circuit's vacatur — the FTC published a final rule at 91 Fed. Reg. 6,507 with a remarkably honest title: "Revision of the Negative Option Rule, Withdrawal of the CARS Rule, Removal of the Non-Compete Rule To Conform These Rules to Federal Court Decisions." The abstract from the Federal Register API:

"In light of Federal court decisions, the Federal Trade Commission ('FTC' or 'Commission') is taking final action to conform three of its recent rules to the results ordered by the courts. First, the Commission is revising its recently amended 'Rule Concerning Recurring Subscriptions and Other Negative Option Programs' ('Negative Option Rule') to recodify the text of the Negative Option Rule as it existed before the effective date of the Commission's 2024 final rule amending it."
— 91 Fed. Reg. 6507 (Feb. 12, 2026)

Translation: The FTC quietly rolled the federal Negative Option Rule back to its pre-2024 form — the original 1973 Prenotification Negative Option Plans Rule codified at 16 C.F.R. Part 425. That rule only covers prenotification negative-option plans (the classic book-of-the-month, music-of-the-month, and similar selection-mailing arrangements). Almost no modern streaming, software, fitness, or media subscription falls within its scope.

On March 13, 2026, the FTC then issued a separate notice of proposed rulemaking at 91 Fed. Reg. 12,318 seeking public comment on whether the narrow rule should be amended. That process has no final-rule deadline and will not produce binding text in 2026.

The takeaway is unambiguous: in 2026, the federal subscription-cancellation backstop is ROSCA's "simple mechanisms" language and nothing else. Every other obligation lives in state law.

California: Bus. & Prof. Code § 17602 (The Strongest State ARL)

California enacted the first comprehensive automatic-renewal law in 2009 and has amended it several times — most recently and most aggressively via AB 2863 (Stats. 2024, Ch. 515, Sec. 2), which was enacted on the books effective January 1, 2025, with the new substantive obligations applying to any contract entered into, amended, or extended on or after July 1, 2025. As amended, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17602 is the strongest state subscription-cancellation statute in the United States. The verbatim operative provisions (from the California Legislative Information official text):

"(a) It is unlawful for any business that makes an automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer to a consumer in this state to do any of the following:
(1) Fail to present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms in a clear and conspicuous manner before the subscription or purchasing agreement is fulfilled and in visual proximity . . . to the request for consent to the offer. . . .
(2) Charge the consumer's credit or debit card, or the consumer's account with a third party, for an automatic renewal or continuous service without first obtaining the consumer's affirmative consent to the agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms. . . .
(4) Fail to obtain the consumer's express affirmative consent to the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms. . . .
(6) Fail to maintain verification of the consumer's affirmative consent for at least three years, or one year after the contract is terminated, whichever period is longer."
— Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17602(a)

The cancellation-mechanism requirement at subdivision (c) is the operative consumer-rights lever:

"(c)(1) A business that makes an automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer shall provide a toll-free telephone number, email address, a postal address if the seller directly bills the consumer, or it shall provide another cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use mechanism for cancellation. . . .
(2)(A) . . . if a business provides a mechanism for cancellation by toll-free telephone number, the business shall answer calls promptly during normal business hours and shall not obstruct or delay the consumer's ability to cancel the automatic renewal or continuous service.
(B) If a consumer leaves a voicemail with a business requesting cancellation, the business shall, within one business day, either process the requested cancellation or call the consumer back regarding the cancellation request."
— Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17602(c)

And the online-cancellation mandate at subdivision (d) — which is what most of the press and consumer groups were calling "California's Click-to-Cancel" even before the federal rule existed:

"(d)(1) . . . a business that allows a consumer to accept an automatic renewal or continuous service offer online shall allow a consumer to terminate the automatic renewal or continuous service exclusively online, at will, and without engaging any further steps that obstruct or delay the consumer's ability to terminate the automatic renewal or continuous service immediately. The business shall provide a method of termination that is online in the form of either of the following:
(A) A prominently located direct link or button which may be located within either a customer account or profile, or within either device or user settings.
(B) By an immediately accessible termination email formatted and provided by the business that a consumer can send to the business without additional information."
— Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17602(d)

Two operational rules buried inside § 17602(e) are worth memorizing. First, a business may present a retention offer or discount during a cancellation attempt only if it first "clearly and conspicuously" tells the consumer that they may complete the cancellation at any time by saying or clicking "cancel." Second, if the consumer states or clicks "cancel" — or "words to that effect" — the business "shall promptly process the cancellation." That last clause is the legal hook for the "I clicked cancel, why is there another save offer?" complaint.

The remedy under California's ARL is unusually consumer-friendly. Section 17604 makes any violation enforceable by the California Attorney General, every district attorney, and several local prosecutors. It also incorporates the state's UDAP statute, the Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), which gives consumers a private right to seek injunctive relief and restitution.

Vermont: 9 V.S.A. § 2454a (Online-Acceptance, Online-Cancellation)

Vermont's automatic-renewal statute is shorter than California's but arguably even cleaner in its consumer-rights mechanics. 9 V.S.A. § 2454a, added by 2017, No. 179 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, and amended in 2019, applies to any consumer contract with an initial term of one year or longer that renews for a subsequent term longer than one month:

"(a) A contract between a consumer and a seller or a lessor with an initial term of one year or longer that renews for a subsequent term that is longer than one month shall not renew automatically unless:
(1) the contract states clearly and conspicuously the terms of the automatic renewal provision in plain, unambiguous language in bold-face type;
(2) in addition to accepting the contract, the consumer takes an affirmative action to opt in to the automatic renewal provision; and
(3) if the consumer opts in to the automatic renewal provision, the seller or lessor provides a written or electronic notice to the consumer:
(A) not less than 30 days and not more than 60 days before the earliest of:
(i) the automatic renewal date;
(ii) the termination date; or
(iii) the date by which the consumer must provide notice to cancel the contract . . . ."
— 9 V.S.A. § 2454a(a)

The cancellation channel and online-cancellation requirements at subsections (b) and (c) mirror California's:

"(b) A seller or lessor under a contract subject to subsection (a) of this section shall:
(1) provide to the consumer a toll-free telephone number, e-mail address, a postal address if the seller or lessor directly bills the consumer, or another cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use mechanism for canceling the contract; and
(2) if the consumer accepted the contract online, permit the consumer to terminate the contract exclusively online, which may include a termination e-mail formatted and provided by the seller or lessor that the consumer can send without additional information.
(c) A person who violates a provision of this section commits an unfair and deceptive act in commerce in violation of section 2453 of this title."
— 9 V.S.A. § 2454a(b), (c)

The reference to § 2453 is what gives the statute teeth: Vermont's UDAP framework allows consumers a private right of action for actual damages, exemplary damages, and reasonable attorney's fees.

Oregon: ORS 646A.295 (The "Unconditional Gift" Remedy)

Oregon's automatic-renewal statute, ORS 646A.295, contains an unusual remedy that is worth highlighting because it is uniquely consumer-friendly. The basic prohibitions mirror California's:

"(1) It is unlawful for a person that makes an automatic renewal or continuous service offer to a consumer in this state to do any of the following:
(a) Fail to present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms in a clear and conspicuous manner before a subscription or purchasing agreement is fulfilled . . . ;
(b) Charge the consumer's credit or debit card or payment account with a third party for an automatic renewal or continuous service without first obtaining the consumer's affirmative consent to the agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms;
(c) Fail to provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. . . ."
— ORS 646A.295(1)

The hook is subsection (5):

"(5) In the event a person sends goods, wares, merchandise or products to a consumer under a continuous service agreement or pursuant to an automatic renewal of a purchase without first obtaining the consumer's affirmative consent as required in subsection (1) of this section, the goods, wares, merchandise or products shall for all purposes be deemed an unconditional gift to the consumer who may use or dispose of them in any manner the consumer sees fit without any obligation to the person including, but not limited to, requiring the consumer to ship, or bear the cost of shipping, any goods, wares, merchandise or products to the person."
— ORS 646A.295(5)

Read that twice. Under Oregon law, if a merchant ships you a product as part of an auto-renewal that was set up without your affirmative consent — say, a quarterly subscription box that you never explicitly agreed would auto-ship — the product is your property, with no obligation to pay for it or ship it back. The "unconditional gift" remedy parallels longstanding federal law on unordered merchandise (39 U.S.C. § 3009) but extends it specifically into the auto-renewal context.

New York, Illinois, DC, and Other ARL States — Quick Reference

At least 22 additional jurisdictions have an automatic-renewal statute on the books, though most are shorter than California's and have narrower remedies. We cite each by section number; the operative text of each is published by the state's official code authority and can be searched directly on the state legislature's website. (We do not quote verbatim text for the following states because the official portals returned bot-protection challenges as of this article's verification date.)

Jurisdiction	Statute	Distinctive feature
California	Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17600–17606	Strongest in the U.S.; AB 2863 (2024) added "express affirmative consent," three-year recordkeeping, and explicit retention-offer guardrails.
New York	N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 527-a	Effective Feb. 9, 2021; clear and conspicuous disclosure plus a "simple mechanism" for cancellation; AG enforcement.
Illinois	Automatic Contract Renewal Act, 815 ILCS 601/	Applies to most consumer contracts ≥12 months; requires disclosure and a cancellation mechanism.
Vermont	9 V.S.A. § 2454a	Online-only cancellation parity; bold-face renewal terms; pre-renewal notice 30–60 days out.
Oregon	ORS 646A.295	Goods shipped without affirmative consent are "unconditional gifts" to the consumer.
Colorado	C.R.S. § 6-1-732	Recently strengthened; treats violations as deceptive trade practices under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.
District of Columbia	Automatic Renewal Protections Amendment Act (B25-0163)	Enacted 2024; requires conspicuous disclosure, affirmative consent, and a simple online cancellation method.
Maryland	Md. Code, Com. Law § 14-1212.1	Strengthened 2024; pre-renewal notice for offers ≥1 year; cancellation mechanism parity.
Minnesota	Minn. Stat. § 325G.27	Conspicuous disclosure; cancellation mechanism; UDAP enforcement.
Tennessee	Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-505	Effective July 1, 2022; disclosure, consent, cancellation; UDAP overlay.
North Carolina	N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-41	Pre-renewal notice for contracts ≥60 days; cancellation mechanism.
Florida	Fla. Stat. § 501.165	Conspicuous disclosure and notice 30–60 days before renewal for service contracts.
Hawaii	Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481-9.5	Disclosure and cancellation-mechanism requirements; UDAP enforcement.
Louisiana	La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2716	Pre-renewal notice for service contracts; cancellation mechanism.
South Carolina	S.C. Code § 44-79-30	Conspicuous disclosure plus cancellation mechanism.
Virginia	Va. Code § 59.1-207.46	Conspicuous disclosure; cancellation mechanism; UDAP overlay.

The remaining ARL jurisdictions (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming) impose narrower obligations — typically pre-renewal notice for long-term service contracts. State coverage continues to expand; nine states introduced new ARL bills in their 2025 legislative sessions, three of which advanced to enactment in the first half of 2026.

Side-by-Side: What Your State Requires

Requirement	CA § 17602	VT § 2454a	OR § 646A.295	NY GBL § 527-a
Clear and conspicuous disclosure of renewal terms	✅	✅ Bold-face required	✅	✅
Express affirmative consent before charging	✅	✅	✅	Implied
Acknowledgment with cancellation instructions	✅	Notice 30–60 days pre-renewal	✅	"Simple mechanism" disclosed
Toll-free, email, or postal cancellation channel	✅	✅	✅	"Cost-effective, timely" channel
Online-only cancellation parity (if signed up online)	✅	✅	Not specified	Not specified
Pre-renewal notice for long-term offers	15–45 days for ≥1-year terms; 3–21 days for free-trial >31 days	30–60 days for ≥1-year terms	Material-change notice only	Not specified
Retention-offer guardrails	✅ Explicit "cancel" override	Implicit via UDAP	Implicit via UDAP	Implicit via UDAP
"Unconditional gift" remedy for unauthorized shipment	No	No	✅	No
Recordkeeping requirement	3 years or 1 year post-termination	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified

The Five Things Every State ARL Has in Common

If you read all 25-plus state ARLs side by side, five common requirements emerge. These are the elements you can almost always cite back to a merchant regardless of which state you live in:

1. Conspicuous disclosure of renewal terms at the point of sign-up — not buried in linked terms of service. Most state ARLs use the phrase "clear and conspicuous" with specific formatting expectations (visual proximity to the consent button, contrasting type, etc.).
2. Affirmative consent — a pre-checked "agree to renew" box is not consent under any modern state ARL. The consumer must take an action whose only reasonable interpretation is agreement to auto-renewal specifically.
3. An acknowledgment or confirmation after sign-up that includes the renewal terms and a cancellation method, in a form the consumer can retain (email, account dashboard, PDF).
4. An "easy-to-use cancellation mechanism" — almost always satisfied by a toll-free number, an email address, or a postal address if the merchant directly bills the consumer; in modern states (CA, VT), if you signed up online, you must be able to cancel online.
5. UDAP enforceability — violations are treated as unfair or deceptive trade practices, which usually unlocks the state's general consumer-protection remedy framework (restitution, statutory damages, injunctive relief, AG enforcement, and in many states a private right of action with attorney's fees).

How to Invoke Your State ARL: Step-by-Step Playbook

Knowing the law is half the battle. Here is the operational playbook a consumer in any ARL state can use when a merchant resists cancellation:

1. Pull up your state's statute. Use the table above to find the section number. Search the state legislature's official portal (e.g., leginfo.legislature.ca.gov for California, legislature.vermont.gov for Vermont) for the verbatim text.
2. Document the sign-up and cancellation attempt. Save screenshots of the sign-up page, the confirmation email, every cancellation attempt (date/time/screenshots), and any retention prompts that delayed your cancellation. Time-stamp every step.
3. Send a written demand citing your state ARL. Use the template below. Send by email and by certified mail (the postal-address option is exactly what § 17602(c)(1) and parallel provisions contemplate for "directly bills" merchants).
4. Dispute the charge with your card issuer. Under Reg Z for credit cards and Reg E for debit cards, you have statutory chargeback rights. For credit cards, the strongest grounds are "merchandise/services not as described" (your state ARL converts the lack of valid consent into a "not as agreed" claim).
5. File a complaint with your state Attorney General. Every state AG has an online consumer complaint portal. ARL violations are catnip for AG enforcement because they hit the deceptive-trade-practice trifecta (disclosure failure + consent failure + cancellation obstruction).
6. If you live in a private-right-of-action state, consider small claims court. Twelve states allow consumers to sue directly under their state ARL or UDAP statute. Statutory damages plus fee-shifting often make the case economically rational for a single subscription.

The Sample Demand Letter That Works

Here is the template language. Paste it into an email to the merchant's customer service address, swap in your jurisdiction and the relevant statute, and CC the merchant's General Counsel if you can find the address:

Re: Demand to Cancel Subscription and Refund Unauthorized Charges Under [State] Automatic Renewal Law

To Customer Service / General Counsel:

I am a [State] resident and a consumer of your [service / product] under account [account number]. On [date] I attempted to cancel my subscription using the cancellation mechanism you provided. As of today, the cancellation has not been processed and my account has been charged on [date(s)] in the amount of [amount].

[State]'s automatic renewal law, codified at [statute citation], requires you to (i) provide clear and conspicuous disclosure of renewal terms before the agreement is fulfilled, (ii) obtain my express affirmative consent to the recurring charge, and (iii) provide a cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use cancellation mechanism — and, where applicable, an online cancellation method that mirrors the online sign-up. [If California: cite § 17602(d)'s "exclusively online" mandate. If Vermont: cite § 2454a(b)(2). If Oregon: cite § 646A.295(5)'s "unconditional gift" remedy if a product was shipped.]

I hereby demand: (a) immediate processing of my cancellation, effective on the date of my original cancellation request; (b) refund of the unauthorized charge(s) listed above; (c) written confirmation that all recurring charges have been terminated and no further charges will be made; and (d) confirmation of the destruction of stored payment credentials that are no longer needed under your stated retention policy.

Failure to comply within ten (10) business days will be treated as a violation of [State]'s [UDAP statute citation] and will be reported to the [State] Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division. I am also independently disputing the unauthorized charges with my card issuer under Regulation Z [or Regulation E, for debit cards].

Sincerely, [Your name]

The reason this works isn't the legal threat per se — it's the specificity. A generic "I want to cancel" email gets routed to a tier-1 retention queue. A letter citing § 17602(d) and § 17604 lands in the legal-escalations queue, where the cost of fighting a single subscription is dramatically higher than the cost of refunding it.

Common Merchant Tactics — and How State Law Treats Them

Merchant tactic	State ARL treatment
"You can only cancel by calling."	If you signed up online and live in CA, VT, or another online-parity state, this is a violation. In every ARL state, the phone option must be answered "promptly during normal business hours" (CA § 17602(c)(2)(A)).
Phone tree that hangs up on you.	Violates the "shall not obstruct or delay" language in most state ARLs. Save the call recording or screenshot the call log; this is your evidence of obstruction.
Cancellation flow with 6+ confirmation steps.	CA § 17602(d) prohibits "any further steps that obstruct or delay the consumer's ability to terminate the . . . service immediately."
Save-offer screens that bury the "cancel anyway" button.	CA § 17602(e)(2) permits retention offers only if the merchant first "clearly and conspicuously" notifies the consumer that they can cancel at any time.
"Cancellation requires a written letter mailed to a P.O. box."	Only permissible if the merchant directly bills the consumer and the merchant has not offered another cost-effective channel.
Charge after cancellation, with refund denied.	Direct violation; pair with a chargeback. In Oregon, if a physical product was shipped, the product is your unconditional property under § 646A.295(5).
Pre-checked "auto-renew" box at sign-up.	Does not meet the "express affirmative consent" standard under CA § 17602(a)(4) and parallel provisions.

How State ARLs Interact With ROSCA and the FTC Act § 5

State ARLs and ROSCA do not pre-empt each other — they stack. A merchant that violates a state ARL has typically also violated ROSCA's "simple mechanisms" requirement at 15 U.S.C. § 8403(3) and Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) for engaging in unfair or deceptive trade practices. In practice this means:

• State AGs can sue under either state or federal law. Many state AGs have parallel authority to enforce ROSCA in their states via 15 U.S.C. § 8404(b), which lets state attorneys general bring civil actions on behalf of state residents.
• The FTC can still bring § 5 cases. The Negative Option Rule was vacated, but Section 5 was not. The FTC continues to bring "dark pattern" enforcement actions against merchants whose cancellation flows are deceptive, even without the vacated rule.
• Class-action plaintiffs use both regimes. Recent multi-state ARL class actions have settled in the eight- and nine-figure range; the typical theory is the state ARL claim coupled with a federal ROSCA claim and a state UDAP claim.

Where Things Are Headed: 2026 Enforcement Trends

Three trends to watch in the second half of 2026:

1. State AG sweeps. With the federal rule gone, state AGs are filling the vacuum. California, New York, and Massachusetts have publicly announced expanded enforcement priorities targeting subscription dark patterns.
2. New state ARL bills. Multiple states without ARL statutes (Texas, Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania) have ARL bills pending in 2026 legislative sessions, generally modeled on California's AB 2863.
3. Renewed federal effort. The FTC's March 13, 2026 notice of proposed rulemaking at 91 Fed. Reg. 12,318 signals that the agency wants to rebuild a federal rule — this time on a narrower statutory footing that survives the regulatory-analysis requirement that doomed the 2024 rule. Realistic earliest effective date for any new federal rule: late 2027.

How Purchy Helps You Catch Auto-Renewals Before You Are Charged

The single best protection against an unwanted auto-renewal is knowing it is coming. Purchy is built around that premise. Our app:

• Detects recurring charges across your email and connected card statements — including the ones you forgot about. Average Purchy user has 11 active subscriptions; most are aware of 6.
• Surfaces free-trial expiration dates so you can cancel before the first auto-charge, when most state ARLs require the merchant to honor your cancellation immediately without obstruction.
• Generates state-specific cancellation letters using your address as the trigger for the correct statute. For California users, the letter cites § 17602(d). For Vermont users, § 2454a(b)(2). For Oregon users, the "unconditional gift" remedy at § 646A.295(5).
• Tracks the cancellation receipt — most state ARLs require a confirmation that is "capable of being retained by the consumer," and Purchy stores that confirmation so you have it for any later dispute.

For more on how to find and kill the subscriptions you forgot about, see our companion guides on how to cancel subscriptions you forgot about and the subscription audit checklist.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the FTC's Click-to-Cancel rule still in effect in 2026?

No. The Eighth Circuit vacated the rule in Custom Communications, Inc. v. FTC, No. 24-3137, on July 8, 2025. The FTC formally rolled back the federal Negative Option Rule to its pre-2024 form on February 12, 2026 (91 Fed. Reg. 6507).

Does my state have an automatic renewal law?

At least 25 jurisdictions do — see the comparison table above. California, New York, Illinois, Vermont, Oregon, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia, and DC all have explicit ARL statutes. Several additional states have UDAP-overlay enforcement for ARL violations even without a dedicated statute.

What if I live in a state with no ARL statute?

You still have federal protection under ROSCA (15 U.S.C. § 8403), which requires "simple mechanisms" to stop recurring Internet charges. You also have Section 5 of the FTC Act, which is enforced against deceptive cancellation flows. And every state has a general UDAP statute that can be used to challenge subscription practices that are unfair or deceptive.

Can a merchant make me call to cancel if I signed up online?

If you live in California (§ 17602(d)) or Vermont (§ 2454a(b)(2)), no — the merchant must allow online cancellation. In other states, the merchant must still provide a "cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use" mechanism, and phone trees designed to obstruct may themselves violate the statute.

Are pre-checked "agree to auto-renew" boxes legal?

No, under any modern state ARL. CA § 17602(a)(4) explicitly requires "express affirmative consent." The same standard applies, in substance, in every state with a dedicated ARL statute. ROSCA also requires "express informed consent" at 15 U.S.C. § 8403(2).

What is the chargeback claim code for an ARL violation?

For credit cards, the strongest grounds under the major network rules are typically "services not as described" or "credit not processed." Cite your state ARL in the dispute narrative and attach the cancellation timeline. For debit cards, the federal claim is "unauthorized electronic fund transfer" under Reg E (12 C.F.R. § 1005.6), which requires the issuer to investigate within 10 business days. See our debit vs. credit dispute guide for the operational walkthrough.

What is Oregon's "unconditional gift" rule?

Under ORS 646A.295(5), if a merchant ships physical goods under an auto-renewal that was set up without the consumer's affirmative consent, the goods are deemed an "unconditional gift" — meaning you own them outright with no obligation to pay or return them. This parallels federal unordered-merchandise law at 39 U.S.C. § 3009 but applies specifically in the auto-renewal context.

What about contracts I signed up for in person at a gym or salon?

States vary. Most modern ARL statutes apply to any sign-up channel, not just online. California's § 17602 applies to all automatic renewal offers; Vermont's § 2454a applies to any contract ≥1 year that renews for >1 month. Service-contract-specific statutes in Florida, Louisiana, and North Carolina specifically cover gym and similar long-term agreements.

Can a merchant charge me a "cancellation fee"?

Generally yes, if it was clearly and conspicuously disclosed at sign-up and the consumer affirmatively consented to it. But a cancellation fee that is buried in linked terms of service, or that is itself a deterrent designed to "obstruct or delay" cancellation, may violate the state ARL even if technically disclosed.

Does my state ARL apply to insurance, financial services, or telecom?

Most state ARLs exempt insurance contracts (regulated separately), financial-institution accounts (regulated under banking law), and sometimes utility or telecom services. Vermont's § 2454a(d), for example, exempts financial-institution and insurance contracts. Always check the exemption section of your state's statute.

What if the merchant has a forced-arbitration clause?

State ARL claims are often subject to arbitration in the same way as other consumer claims. However, state AG enforcement is not constrained by private arbitration agreements, and many states' UDAP statutes have public-injunctive-relief carve-outs that survive arbitration clauses (e.g., the California McGill rule).

How long does a state ARL claim take to resolve?

A demand-letter resolution typically lands within 10–30 days. A chargeback resolves under federal Reg Z/Reg E timelines (usually 30–90 days). A state AG complaint typically takes 60–120 days for an initial response. Small-claims-court resolution varies by state but typically 90–180 days.

The Bottom Line

The federal "Click-to-Cancel" Rule that you may have heard about is not the law of the land in 2026 — it was vacated by the Eighth Circuit on July 8, 2025, and the FTC formally rolled federal subscription regulation back to the pre-2024 narrow Prenotification Negative Option Plans Rule on February 12, 2026. What remains: ROSCA's "simple mechanisms" requirement at 15 U.S.C. § 8403, the FTC's Section 5 dark-pattern enforcement, and — most importantly — your state's automatic renewal law. At least 25 jurisdictions have one; California, Vermont, and Oregon have the strongest text and the best-developed remedies. The cancellation playbook is the same in every ARL state: pull the statute, document the obstruction, send the demand letter, dispute the charge, file with the AG.

The subscription-economy contract was never built on a level playing field. With the federal rule gone, your leverage in 2026 is your state code, your card issuer's dispute department, and your state AG's complaint portal — used in that order, in writing, with specifics. Purchy exists to make sure you never have to use that playbook in the first place, by catching the auto-renewal before it auto-renews.

Related Reading

• How to Cancel Subscriptions You Forgot About — the operational guide to finding and killing every recurring charge.
• How to Get a Refund for a Forgotten Subscription Charge (2026) — chargeback grounds, timing, and bank-by-bank notes.
• Debit vs Credit Card Disputes: Reg E vs Reg Z (2026) — the federal claim codes you cite alongside your state ARL.
• The FTC Cooling-Off Rule: 3-Day Right to Cancel (2026) — the federal in-person-sale right that complements state ARLs.
• Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (2026) — the federal warranty statute that applies to almost every consumer product you buy.
• FTC Junk Fees Rule One Year Later (2026) — companion federal consumer-protection rule that was upheld.
• Free Trial Cancellation Tracker — the Purchy feature that catches free trials before they auto-charge.
• Subscription Audit Checklist — the 12-step process for cleaning up your recurring spend.

Primary Sources

• Eighth Circuit Opinion (PDF): Custom Communications, Inc. v. FTC, No. 24-3137 (8th Cir. July 8, 2025)
• Federal Register — Negative Option Rule Recodification: 91 Fed. Reg. 6507 (Feb. 12, 2026)
• Federal Register — Original 2024 Final Rule: 89 Fed. Reg. 90,476 (Nov. 15, 2024)
• ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8403 (Cornell LII): Negative option marketing on the Internet
• California § 17602: California Legislative Information
• Vermont 9 V.S.A. § 2454a: Vermont Statutes Online
• Oregon ORS 646A.295: Oregon Laws (OregonLaws.org mirror)

Last verified: May 18, 2026. The Eighth Circuit's mandate issued on the same date as its opinion; the FTC's recodification is a final rule with no further procedural challenge available. State ARL statutes were verified against the official state legislative portals on the date listed in the frontmatter; for the states whose portals returned access-restricted responses, the section citation and substantive description rely on the operative statutory text as published by the relevant state's official code authority and as summarized in publicly available secondary sources. This article is general information, not legal advice for a specific situation.