Bipartisan Reintroduction Of The Unsubscribe Act Aims To Make Cancelling Subscriptions As Easy As Signing Up

Millions of Americans lose hundreds of dollars each year to subscriptions they forget to cancel or find needlessly difficult to end. With a court vacating the Federal Trade Commission’s specific “click-to-cancel” rule on procedural grounds, two House members are pushing a legislative fix.

California Democrat Mark Takano and Nevada Republican Mark Amodei reintroduced the Unsubscribe Act on Tuesday. The bipartisan bill would bar intentionally complex cancellation processes for paid trials and recurring subscriptions and require explicit consent before charging customers once a free or reduced-price trial ends.

What the Bill Would Do

The Unsubscribe Act would:

• Require companies to obtain explicit consent before charging customers after a trial period ends.
• Mandate that cancellation steps be no more complicated than the sign-up process.
• Prohibit automatic enrollment in continuing contracts without clear consent.
• Oblige sellers to send periodic notices about recurring charges and easy cancellation options.

Why Sponsors Say It’s Needed

Takano, who has carried versions of the bill since 2017, said the complexity in cancellation flows is often intentional.

“Cancelling a subscription should be just as easy as signing up for one. These marketing techniques rely on the fact that people are busy — that they’ll forget they entered a trial period,”

Proponents point to surveys showing many households routinely pay for unused services. One analysis from StudyFinds estimated the average U.S. household wastes about $127 a year on unused subscriptions, while a CNET survey in 2025 put that figure at around $204. The CNET research also estimated Gen Z users lose roughly $276 per year as they juggle multiple streaming services, apps and digital memberships.

Regulatory And Industry Context

In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the FTC’s click-to-cancel rule on procedural grounds, saying the agency had not completed a required economic impact analysis — but the court did not rule on the rule’s consumer-protection merits. Following that decision, the FTC solicited public comment on reopening the rulemaking process.

The Unsubscribe Act has won endorsements from consumer groups including the Consumer Federation of America, Public Citizen and the National Consumer League. Industry groups, however, push back: the Internet and Television Association previously argued the FTC rule could “burden, confuse, and harm consumers,” and trade groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenged the original rule in court.

Meanwhile, the FTC has continued subscription-related enforcement under other authorities. In September the agency secured a $7.5 million settlement with an education-technology provider over cancellation practices under the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, and consumer advocates petitioned the FTC in November to reopen the click-to-cancel rulemaking.

What’s Next

Supporters say the Unsubscribe Act would make the law clearer for courts and businesses and curb a common source of consumer harm. Opponents say the rule could impose compliance costs and unintended burdens on companies and customers. The bill’s reintroduction marks a notable bipartisan moment for an issue that affects a broad swath of consumers.