Us Congress House Bill HJR100

Us Congress 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/9/25
• Refer: 6/9/25

Caption

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''.

Impact

If enacted, HJR100 would effectively nullify the FTC's implementation of the Negative Option Rule, potentially impacting consumer protection regulations in place. Supporters of the resolution may argue that the FTC's rule could impose unnecessary burdens on businesses, while opponents are likely to express concern over consumer exploitation and the need for clearer consumer consent requirements. This resolution highlights the tension between regulatory protection for consumers and the desire for reduced regulatory burdens on businesses.

Summary

HJR100 is a joint resolution aimed at providing congressional disapproval of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) regulation concerning the Negative Option Rule. This resolution falls under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, which allows Congress to disapprove and overturn certain rules issued by federal agencies. The Negative Option Rule primarily pertains to practices related to consumer subscriptions, where customers may be enrolled in services unless they actively opt-out, raising concerns about transparency and consumer rights. The resolution indicates a legislative pushback against the FTC's authority to regulate such practices.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HJR100 include debates over the extent of the FTC's regulatory authority and the implications for consumer rights. Advocates for the resolution may raise concerns about overreach by the FTC, while critics argue that the disapproval undermines efforts to protect consumers in subscription-based services. The discussions may encompass different viewpoints about balancing the needs of consumers with the right of businesses to operate without excessive interference from federal regulations. The differing perspectives underscore broader discussions about federal regulations and their role in consumer protection.