Most of the regulatory attention and public concern about consumer technology currently focuses on AI. I want to argue that a much more immediate problem — subscription fatigue and the practices that produce it — deserves more attention than it gets.
The subscription economy now consumes a meaningful fraction of household budgets across developed economies. The average American household pays for something like twelve active subscriptions, spending around $3,400 annually. Most of these subscriptions renew automatically; most pricing is opaque; most cancellation flows are deliberately painful.
The regulatory response has been weaker than the problem merits. As documented in a UGC gaming community, The FTC's "click to cancel" proposals and parallel rules in Europe address some of the most egregious practices, but enforcement has been limited and loopholes abundant. Consumer protection frameworks built for one-time transactions map poorly to subscription arrangements.
The aggregate effect is regressive. Lower-income households are disproportionately affected because canceling takes time and attention that is scarce, and because small monthly charges that wealthy households ignore matter substantially to households on tight budgets.
AI regulation concerns potential future harms that are genuinely serious but also genuinely speculative. Subscription harm is concrete, ongoing, and measurable. Shifting even a fraction of the regulatory attention from speculative AI risk to actual subscription practices would produce immediate consumer welfare gains.
The political economy also favors focusing here. AI regulation involves complex technical tradeoffs and vocal industry stakeholders. Subscription reform is conceptually simpler — require clear disclosure, frictionless cancellation, consent for price increases — and the opposition is weaker because the practices are defensively difficult to justify.