House Democrat and Republican to reintroduce ‘click-to-cancel’ bill

The average American is losing hundreds of dollars each year on subscriptions they forget to cancel or struggle to end, even as federal consumer protections meant to address the problem remain blocked by a federal court ruling.

With the regulatory route stalled, two representatives are offering a bipartisan fix: California Democrat Mark Takano and Nevada Republican Mark Amodei are reintroducing the Unsubscribe Act Tuesday morning that would prohibit deliberately complex cancellation processes.

Takano has introduced versions of the bill since 2017, but this marks the first time it has drawn a Republican co-sponsor.

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

The bill, shared exclusively with the Guardian, comes as the Federal Trade Commission quietly solicits public input on restoring its “click to cancel” rule, which was overturned in July by the eighth circuit court of appeals on procedural grounds. The court found the FTC had failed to produce a required economic impact analysis, though it did not rule on the merits of the consumer protection itself.

Multiple surveys show Americans routinely pay for services they no longer use or forgot they had signed up for. One analysis from StudyFinds said the average US household wastes about $127 annually on unused subscriptions, while another survey from CNET in 2025 suggested it could reach $204.

The CNET survey suggested gen Z subscribers lose, on average, approximately $276 per year on unused services as they navigate multiple streaming platforms, apps and digital memberships.

“A $5, $15, or $50 monthly subscription may not feel like much – but over a year, that can be $600 or more,” Takano said. “With two or three subscriptions, some people can easily lose over $1,000 a year.”

The legislation would require companies to obtain explicit consent before charging customers after free or reduced-price trials end, and mandate that cancellation processes be no more complicated than sign-up. It would also prohibit automatic enrolment in contracts and require sellers to periodically notify customers of charges and cancellation options.

Takano argues the complexity isn’t accidental. “Companies can predict that a certain percentage of consumers will overlook the trial ending, and they profit from that,” he said. “Consumers often discover that cancelling requires many more steps than signing up – sometimes even mailing a physical letter.”

Takano has pushed the legislation since 2017, most recently in 2021, but earlier versions drew only Democratic support in the House. A companion bill introduced in the Senate in July by Brian Schatz and John Kennedy has had bipartisan backing since 2021.

“This time, the bill has bipartisan support, and there’s interest across the aisle,” he said.

The proposed bill has drawn endorsements from consumer advocacy groups including the Consumer Federation of America, Public Citizen and the National Consumer League. But it faces opposition from powerful industry coalitions.

The Internet and Television Association, which represents major cable providers, previously argued the FTC’s click-to-cancel rule could “burden, confuse, and harm consumers”. The US Chamber of Commerce and trade groups representing telecoms, security systems and online advertisers challenged the original rule in court, asserting regulators had exceeded their authority.

The FTC under Trump has continued pursuing subscription-related enforcement actions under other authorities since the July court ruling. In September, the agency secured a $7.5m settlement with an education technology provider over cancellation practices under the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act.

Consumer groups petitioned the FTC in November to reopen the click-to-cancel rule-making process, arguing the court’s decision addressed only procedural matters rather than the substance of the protections. The agency quietly published the petition in the Federal Register last month, accepting public comments until 2 January.

“The FTC’s rule was overturned on a technicality,” Takano said. “This bill makes the law clear to the courts and the business community: companies have to play fair.”