Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

User talk:Louis/3D-printed firearms and the technical basis for printer mandates

2026-06-03T03:47:24Z

Xp: /* Support Material and Other G-Code Complications, and Restricted vs Non-Restricted Parts */ new section

==3D printed guns and "the law".==

Hey Louis and team. The wiki is for the most part correct. "3d printed firearms" are usually a printed frame or receiver and the rest of the parts are commercially available parts that are not regulated. But something the article doesn't take into account is that it is legal to machine or build your own firearm. The Gun Control Act of 1968 allows the manufacture of firearms for personal use. They may not be sold or transfered without a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and you can not make Class 3 items (items related by the National Firearms Act: suppressors, full auto guns, short barreled rifles, etc). This is why it's legal to buy 80% receivers for the AR-15 (traditionally what is used for so called "ghost guns"). They are an AR-15 lower receiver machined to 80% and are not serialized. The user must machine the remaining 20% to make a functioning lower receiver and requires tools and some know how. According to federal law, 3d printing a firearm is not illegal unless it is sold or transferred without a license. It is already illegal to manufacture parts to make a firearm fully automatic (meaning it will fire multiple rounds per trigger pull), as well as suppressors, unless you have the MULTIPLE LICENSES required.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/privately-made-firearms [[Special:Contributions/185.189.25.171|185.189.25.171]] 13:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

==People v. Gatalog Foundation Inc., Cal. Super. Ct., 2/6/26 and Ctrlpew LLC v. Chiu==

California is suing Gatalog and CTRLPew LLC over 3D printed gun files they distribute online. CTRLPew LLC represented by Matthew Larosiere is countersuing in Florida

search Ctrlpew LLC v. Chiu, 6:26-cv-00340 on courtlistener for more details. [[User:Liketomakemoney|Liketomakemoney]] ([[User talk:Liketomakemoney|talk]]) 15:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

:Sources and links related to these 2 civil lawsuits
:https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72258981/ctrlpew-llc-v-chiu/
:https://www.ammoland.com/2026/05/ctrlpew-california-3d-gun-files-lawsuit/
:https://apnews.com/article/lawsuits-general-news-california-rob-bonta-david-chiu-a914142cef3624cf1341fddea498bd88
:https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/from-download-to-deadly-california-sues-operators-of-3d-printed-gun-network-249575/ [[User:Liketomakemoney|Liketomakemoney]] ([[User talk:Liketomakemoney|talk]]) 15:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
:This one is a lot worse than it seems. The files are on servers which as far as I can tell have zero connection to CA. CA says that the fact that the files are accessible in CA is the core issue. The implication is that even if you had posted the files 10 years ago, and then completely forgotten, you could still be sued by them. The only way to be in compliance would be to:
:* Monitor the laws of states you don't live in
:* Find every time you posted something on the internet that might violate that law
:* Remove all of them
:* Never post them on the open internet again, unless the site you're hosting it on has enough controls to let you block the files in that jurisdiction
:[[User:Xp|Xp]] ([[User talk:Xp|talk]]) 03:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

==WA HB2320/2321==

For those unaware, Washington state passed house bill 2320 which bans using a 3D printer or CNC machine to make a firearm; of course this is a violation of the second amendment which has enshrined the legality of manufacturing a firearm for personal use. Beyond this it is a disgusting violation of the first amendment by making it illegal to even possess the files, hooray for thought crimes! They also want to force printer manufacturers to put “blocks” in printers to somehow detect firearms and components and block them being printed. On the whole it is completely insane, but signed into law because the state’s governor cares not for the Constitution or any previous case law or legal precedent. [[Special:Contributions/50.175.37.99|50.175.37.99]] 21:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

==The Liberator==

Years ago when this issue first came around someone created a fully 3D printed gun, called the ‘Liberator’. I was curious, so I downloaded it and tried to print on my crappy Davinci xyz. That thing was a mess of cylinders, springs, and various parts that look nothing like a gun. It was difficult to print and put together. I know it was over a decade ago and 3D printing is infinitely eaiser, but if I did it now, it still would be a difficult process to print and build. Then in the end all I had was a plastic zip gun that nobody would ever try to use because an explosion. Is far more likely than a successful shot. And, like Lou’s said in the video, each individual part looked NOTHING like a gun. Any sort of software would have to be able to infer intention from a cylinder with a hole. It’s fundamentally impossible. [[User:Cristiana|Cristiana]] ([[User talk:Cristiana|talk]]) 00:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

:Do you have a picture of this gun you printed? I'm just curious. [[Special:Contributions/47.160.186.158|47.160.186.158]] 00:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

== Support Material and Other G-Code Complications, and Restricted vs Non-Restricted Parts ==

I added a short note to the NY article already, but something that further complicates analysis of G-Code is that it includes things like support material and brim, which are not intended to be part of the final model. The user of the slicer has control over the pattern, density, and angle of the infill and supports. This means that g-code analysis would have even worse accuracy, because it needs to figure out, on its own, what is actually intended to be part of the final product and what is intended to be removed manually. There is also "infill", which is material added to interior spaces of prints to provide support for layers above. On top of that, there's also the issue that you can orient the print on different sides or on different angles, which will also change the pattern of support material and infill.

Furthermore, the detection of firearm parts is further complicated by the fact that, even if you live in a jurisdiction that prohibits privately-made-firearms, you can still print other firearm components if the jurisdiction does not also prohibit those. Something like the Ruger RXM has a frame that is almost identical to a Glock frame. However, the RXM frame is ''not'' the serialized part of the RXM - it has a serialized fire control unit like the P320. This means that in such a jurisdiction, it would actually be legal to print, yet it is likely to trigger false positives due to similarity with the Glock frame. [[User:Xp|Xp]] ([[User talk:Xp|talk]]) 03:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

User talk:Louis/3D-printed firearms and the technical basis for printer mandates

2026-06-03T03:36:51Z

Xp: /* People v. Gatalog Foundation Inc., Cal. Super. Ct., 2/6/26 and Ctrlpew LLC v. Chiu */ Reply

New York 3D printer blocking technology mandate

2026-06-03T03:32:43Z

Xp: Add legality notes

{{#seo:
|description=New York's FY27 budget will require 3D printers sold in the state to carry blocking technology that scans print files against a firearms-blueprint library.
}}

'''New York's 3D printer blocking technology mandate''' is a state law that, once its rules are written, will prohibit the sale or delivery of any 3D printer in New York unless the machine is equipped with blocking technology that refuses to run a print job until the file has been checked by a firearms-blueprint detection algorithm against a state-maintained library of gun blueprints.<ref name="bill" /> The provision was enacted as Part C of the FY2026-2027 budget bill S. 9005-C / A. 10005-C, signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on May 27, 2026.<ref name="gov" /><ref name="bill" /> The device-sales requirement is not yet in force: it takes effect one year after the Division of Criminal Justice Services promulgates performance standards, which cannot happen until an expert working group reports, and a feasibility clause lets the working group defer the mandate if it finds the scanning technology is not technologically feasible.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Background==
The law responds to firearms that can be produced from digital design files on consumer additive-manufacturing hardware, including untraceable ghost guns and pistol-conversion devices that turn a semi-automatic handgun into a machine gun. Governor Hochul's office presented the budget measures as a response to illegal 3D-printed ghost guns and do-it-yourself machine guns, pairing the 3D-printer rules with new criminal penalties for digital gun files.<ref name="gov" /> The gun-safety group Everytown for Gun Safety characterized the package as shutting down what it called the ''"plastic pipeline"'' of do-it-yourself firearms.<ref name="everytown" /> The private creation of firearms for personal use, including via 3D printing, is not prohibited by US law,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-09-11 |title=Privately Made Firearms {{!}} ATF |url=https://www.atf.gov/firearms/privately-made-firearms |url-status=live |website=Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives}}</ref> but New York State has its own legislation prohibiting privately made firearms.<ref>{{Cite web |title=NY State Senate Bill 2021-S14A |url=https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S14 |url-status=live}}</ref>

'''Rather than moving as a standalone firearms bill with its own floor debate, the measure was enacted inside the Public Protection and General Government article of the state budget''', as Part C of S. 9005-C / A. 10005-C.<ref name="bill" /> Part C is split into Subpart A, which adds the criminal-law definitions and file offenses, and Subpart B, which creates the working group and file library in Executive Law § 837-aa and the device-sales requirement in General Business Law § 396-eeee.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="bill-pdf" /> The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action objected to the use of the budget as the vehicle, calling it a ''"strategic move to put divisive legislation into an all-or-nothing budget bill"'' rather than passing the measure as a standalone bill subject to its own debate.<ref name="nra" />

==What the law requires==
The operative command sits in the new General Business Law § 396-eeee (1):

<blockquote>''No person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation shall sell or deliver any three-dimensional printer in the state of New York unless such printer is equipped with blocking technology.''<ref name="bill" /></blockquote>

Executive Law § 837-aa (1)(b) defines that blocking technology as hardware, software, firmware, or other integrated measures that keep a printer from running any print job ''"unless the underlying three-dimensional printing file has been evaluated by a firearms blueprint detection algorithm and determined not to be a printing file that would produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts."''<ref name="bill" /> The detection algorithm itself is defined in § 837-aa (1)(c) as a software service that evaluates printing files, ''"whether in the form of stereolithography (STL) files or other computer aided design files or geometric code,"'' and flags any file that could produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts.<ref name="bill" />

To supply the data those algorithms check against, § 837-aa (3)(b) authorizes the Division of Criminal Justice Services to build and maintain a library of firearms blueprint files and illegal-firearm-parts blueprint files, ''"including scans of seized firearms."''<ref name="bill-pdf" /> The statute directs that the library be made available to printer manufacturers, software-development vendors, and experts in computational design or public safety, for building and improving the blocking technology and detection algorithms.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

The device requirement carries a narrow exception. Under § 396-eeee (5), the blocking-technology mandate does not apply to a sale or delivery to a buyer who holds both a New York gunsmith license under Penal Law § 400.00 and a federal firearms license, but only after that buyer submits a written request to the Attorney General and the Attorney General verifies the licenses and issues written authorization.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Enforcement is civil and runs through the Attorney General: a gun-industry member who violates § 396-eeee is liable to the people of New York for a flat civil penalty of $5,000 for each qualified product unlawfully sold, transferred, imported, distributed, manufactured, marketed, or offered for sale, and the Attorney General may also sue to enjoin violations and obtain restitution.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Implementation timeline==
The signing on May 27, 2026 did not switch on the device requirement. The § 837-aa working group and file-library provisions took effect on enactment, but the § 396-eeee sales prohibition is gated behind a chain of contingent steps and will not bind printer sellers for years.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="bill-pdf" />

Under § 837-aa (2), within 90 days of the section's effective date the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the Department of State, and the State University of New York will convene a working group of experts in additive-manufacturing technology, artificial intelligence and digital security, firearms regulation, public safety, and consumer product safety.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> No later than one year after it convenes, the working group is to recommend minimum safety standards for blocking technology.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> The Division then has, under § 837-aa (3)(a), up to nine months after receiving those recommendations to promulgate performance-standard rules. Subpart B's effective-date clause provides that the § 396-eeee sales requirement takes effect one year after those rules are promulgated.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Stacked end to end, those statutory intervals place the earliest possible effective date for the device-sales requirement more than two years after enactment.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

That chain can also stop entirely. The statute carries a feasibility escape hatch in § 837-aa (2):

<blockquote>''[I]f the working group determines that it is not technologically feasible to require three-dimensional printers sold in the state of New York to include blocking technology, the working group shall so report, and no regulations shall be required to be promulgated pursuant to this section, until such time as the working group determines that it is technologically feasible.''<ref name="bill-pdf" /></blockquote>

If the working group makes that finding, no rules issue and the sales requirement never takes effect, deferred indefinitely until a future finding of feasibility.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Scope and definitions==
The reach of the mandate turns on how broadly the statute defines a 3D printer. Penal Law § 265.00 (38), mirrored in Executive Law § 837-aa (1)(a), defines the term in two prongs:

<blockquote>''"Three-dimensional printer" means: (a) any machine capable of rendering a three-dimensional object from a digital design file using additive manufacturing; or (b) any machine capable of making three-dimensional modifications to an object from a digital design file using subtractive manufacturing.''<ref name="bill" /></blockquote>

The statute does not separately define ''"additive manufacturing,"'' ''"subtractive manufacturing,"'' or a CNC machine, and it contains no carve-out for machine size, intended purpose, or consumer use.<ref name="bill" /> Writing for Adafruit, Phillip Torrone read the two prongs as reaching past consumer 3D printers, arguing the definitions ''"sweep in not just FDM and resin printers, but also CNC mills"'' along with any machine that performs subtractive manufacturing from a digital file.<ref name="adafruit-ctrlaltdel">{{Cite web |url=https://blog.adafruit.com/2026/02/03/new-york-wants-to-ctrlaltdelete-your-3d-printer/ |title=New York Wants to Ctrl+Alt+Delete Your 3D Printer |author=Phillip Torrone |publisher=Adafruit Industries |date=2026-02-03 |access-date=2026-06-02}}</ref><ref name="techdirt" /> On that reading the mandate would apply to:

* '''Additive manufacturing''' (prong (a)):
** consumer FDM and resin printers
** machines running open-source firmware such as Marlin, Klipper, and RepRap, which Torrone noted are maintained by volunteers with no resources for compliance
** printers that operate offline and never contact the internet
* '''Subtractive manufacturing''' (prong (b)):
** CNC mills, which Torrone wrote can machine any shape from any material

Torrone added that the requirement also reaches file formats and workflows the detection algorithm cannot parse, including raw G-code, custom slicers, and parametric designs generated at print time.<ref name="adafruit-ctrlaltdel" />

Under the statute, the minimum performance standards for blocking technology are left to the working group and the rules that follow, rather than written into the law itself.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Criminal provisions==
Subpart A adds new digital-file offenses to the Penal Law, alongside a new definition of ''"digital firearm manufacturing code"'' in § 265.00 (39) covering computer-aided design files or other code that can program a 3D printer or CNC milling machine to produce a firearm, ghost gun, unfinished frame or receiver, silencer, rapid-fire modification device, or major firearm component.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

Penal Law § 265.10 (11) makes it a class A misdemeanor to knowingly sell or distribute digital firearm manufacturing code to a person who lacks both a New York gunsmith license and a federal firearms license, subject to good-faith, out-of-state, and licensed-recipient exceptions stated in the text.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Section 265.10 (12) makes it a class A misdemeanor to possess such code with intent to illegally manufacture a firearm or to distribute the code to a prohibited or unlicensed New York person.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Both file offenses are misdemeanors, not felonies; the enacted text caps them at a class A misdemeanor.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

The one felony in Subpart A targets conversion devices rather than printers or files. Under § 265.10 (10), a dealer or gunsmith who, on or after May 31, 2027, sells, transfers, or ships a ''"convertible pistol"'', which the statute defines as a semi-automatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be converted into a machine gun by attaching a pistol converter, commits a class D felony.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Technical feasibility criticism==
The central technical objection is that no detection algorithm can reliably separate gun-part geometry from ordinary mechanical geometry. Phillip Torrone of Adafruit, whose critique Techdirt reproduced, argued that such a system would have to identify every possible firearm component from raw STL and G-code files without flagging the pipes, tubes, blocks, brackets, gears, and other common shapes that share geometric properties with gun parts, which he framed as a classification problem carrying high false-positive and false-negative rates.<ref name="techdirt" />

Slicing software converts a 3D model into machine instructions (G-code) that describe tool paths, not labeled parts, so the file a printer executes does not announce what object it builds. Furthermore, additive 3D manufacturing typically involves the use of additional temporary material such as support material<ref name="prusa-support-material">[https://help.prusa3d.com/article/support-material%201698 Support Material | Prusa Knowledge Base]. Retrieved 2026-06-02.</ref> and brims<ref name="prusa-brim">[https://help.prusa3d.com/article/skirt-and-brim_133969#brim Skirt and Brim | Prusa Knowledge Base]. Retrieved 2026-06-02.</ref>, which further complicates detection. Prints can be oriented in a variety of ways, which will cause the slicer to generate entirely different G-code. '''Many machines also run offline, and much of the firmware that drives consumer printers is open source, which means a scanning requirement cannot be enforced on a printer that never contacts the state library or that runs community firmware the mandate does not reach.'''<ref name="techdirt" /> The Electronic Frontier Foundation summarized the technical bet as ''"an unfeasible tech solution."''<ref name="eff" />

==Consumer-rights and surveillance concerns==
The consumer-rights objection is that the mandate puts a state-defined filter between owners and hardware they bought. The Electronic Frontier Foundation described print-blocking as ''"censorware,"'' software that it said ''"surveils every print,"'' and framed the requirement as surveillance of lawful printing carried out on the owner's own machine.<ref name="eff" />

A blocking-technology requirement is a manufacturer-side technical control fixed to hardware the buyer already owns. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has framed print blocking as anti-consumer for the same reason, treating a mandated filter on an owner's machine as a restriction on lawful use of property.<ref name="eff-permission" /> The group compared the requirement to [[Digital rights management|DRM]], calling manufacturer-provided software restrictions ''"an old tactic from the DRM playbook"'' and tracing the approach to the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]], which it said made bypassing DRM a federal crime.<ref name="eff-permission" /> Techdirt noted that much of the firmware running consumer printers, including open-source projects such as Marlin, Klipper, and RepRap, would not ship with a state-compliant detection algorithm, so a scanning requirement could push owners toward proprietary, locked-down machines.<ref name="techdirt" />

Furthermore, if someone encounters a false positive, the law does not outline any remediation or exemption procedure. The law does not even acknowledge nor even contain the term "false positive"<ref name="bill" />. Even if an algorithm is developed which has sufficiently low error rates on currently-available models, the error rate will generally increase once people start intentionally trying to find ways around it. This is known as an "Adversarial Example" and is a well-documented way to evade or deliberately confuse machine learning algorithms.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kurakin |first=Alexey |last2=Goodfellow |first2=Ian |last3=Bengio |first3=Samy |date=2017-02-11 |title=Adversarial examples in the physical world |url=https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.02533 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-06-02 |website=arXiv}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Molnar |first=Christoph |url=https://christophm.github.io/interpretable-ml-book/adversarial.html |title=Interpretable Machine Learning: A Guide For Making Black Box Models Explainable |date=2025-03-13 |edition=3rd}}</ref>

==Comparison to other states==
New York's measure is one of several state efforts in 2026 to regulate 3D-printed firearms through the printer rather than only the file. Washington's House Bill 2321, titled ''"Requiring three-dimensional printers be equipped with certain blocking technologies,"'' would require printers sold in the state to carry blocking features tied to a firearms blueprint detection algorithm.<ref name="wa-bill" /> The bill was prefiled on January 8, 2026 and referred to the House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee, where it remained as of June 1, 2026; it has not been enacted.<ref name="wa-bill" /> As reported by Tom's Hardware, the bill would prohibit sales after July 1, 2027 and set penalties as a class C felony carrying up to five years in prison and a $15,000 fine.<ref name="toms-wa" />

California's Assembly Bill 2047, authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, would require 3D printers sold in the state to be equipped with firearm blocking technology and would add Penal Code § 29187 to make it a misdemeanor to knowingly disable, deactivate, uninstall, or otherwise circumvent firearm blocking technology installed in a 3D printer with intent to manufacture firearms.<ref name="ca-bill" /> The Assembly passed the bill, last amended on May 18, 2026, and sent it to the state Senate, where it was pending as of June 1, 2026.<ref name="toms-ca" />

The underlying question of whether firearm code is protected speech has been litigated separately. In February 2026, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a challenge by Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation to New Jersey's restrictions on distributing 3D-printed gun code, holding that purely functional code with no expressive use is not protected speech and affirming dismissal because the plaintiffs had not pleaded that their files were expressive.<ref name="ca3" /><ref name="courthouse" />

==Reactions==
On the gun-safety side, the Governor's office presented the law as setting ''"first-in-the-nation minimum safety standards for 3D printers sold in New York to be equipped with basic technology that prevents the unlicensed, illegal production of lethal firearms and firearm parts,"'' and directed the Division of Criminal Justice Services to lead the expert task force.<ref name="gov" /> Everytown for Gun Safety praised the budget as nation-leading action against do-it-yourself machine guns and 3D-printed firearms.<ref name="everytown" />

On the maker and digital-rights side, the Electronic Frontier Foundation campaigned against the proposal under the banner ''"Stop New York's Attack on 3D Printing,"'' arguing the approach burdens lawful makers and rests on technology that does not exist.<ref name="eff" /> Technical writers at Techdirt, drawing on analysis from the open-source hardware company Adafruit, focused on the classification problem and the breadth of the printer definition rather than the policy goal, arguing the text as written reaches far beyond firearms and is unworkable as a scanning mandate.<ref name="techdirt" />

==See also==
*[[Right to Repair]]
*[[Digital rights management]]
*[[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]]
*[[Planned obsolescence]]
*[[Bambu Lab]]

==References==
<references>
<ref name="bill">{{Cite web |url=https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S9005/amendment/C |title=Senate Bill S9005C, FY2026-2027 budget (Public Protection and General Government), Part C |publisher=New York State Senate |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-01}} The two-prong three-dimensional printer definition, the § 837-aa(1)(b) blocking-technology definition, the § 837-aa(1)(c) firearms blueprint detection algorithm and STL/CAD/geometric-code clause, and the "Signed by Governor on May 27, 2026 (signed as Chapter 55)" status appear on this page.</ref>
<ref name="bill-pdf">{{Cite web |url=https://assembly.ny.gov/2026budget/2026_bills/enacted/A10005c.pdf |title=Enacted text of A. 10005-C / S. 9005-C, FY2026-2027 budget, Part C |publisher=New York State Assembly |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-01}} Full Part C provisions cited here (the § 396-eeee(5) exception, the § 396-eeee $5,000-per-product civil penalty and Attorney General injunction/restitution authority, the § 837-aa(3)(b) "scans of seized firearms" library clause, the § 837-aa(2) feasibility clause, the 90-day / one-year / nine-month / one-year-after-rules effective-date chain, and the criminal subdivisions at Penal Law § 265.00(39) and § 265.10(10)-(12) with the May 31, 2027 convertible-pistol date) appear in the enacted text.</ref>
<ref name="gov">{{Cite web |url=https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-signs-legislation-strengthen-public-safety-and-make |title=Keeping New Yorkers Safe: Governor Hochul Signs Legislation to Strengthen Public Safety |publisher=Office of Governor Kathy Hochul |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="everytown">{{Cite web |url=https://www.everytown.org/press/new-york-shuts-down-the-plastic-pipeline-governor-hochul-and-lawmakers-pass-nation-leading-measures-to-stop-the-spread-of-diy-machine-guns-and-3d-printed-firearms-in-fy27-budget/ |title=New York Shuts Down the 'Plastic Pipeline': Governor Hochul and Lawmakers Pass Nation-Leading Measures to Stop the Spread of DIY Machine Guns and 3D-Printed Firearms in FY27 Budget |publisher=Everytown for Gun Safety |date=2026 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="eff">{{Cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/stop-new-yorks-attack-3d-printing |title=Stop New York's Attack on 3D Printing |author=Rory Mir and Nathan Sheard |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=2026-04-16 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="techdirt">{{Cite web |url=https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/19/new-yorks-new-3d-printing-law-as-written-is-extremely-harmful-and-annoying/ |title=New York's New 3D Printing Law, As Written, Is Extremely Harmful And Annoying |author=Karl Bode |publisher=Techdirt |date=2026-02-19 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="eff-permission">{{Cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/print-blocking-anti-consumer-permission-print-part-1 |title=Print Blocking is Anti-Consumer: Permission to Print Part 1 |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=April 2026 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="nra">{{Cite web |url=https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260527/new-york-gov-kathy-hochul-signs-gun-ban-in-state-budget-process |title=New York: Gov. Kathy Hochul Signs Gun Ban in State Budget Process |publisher=NRA Institute for Legislative Action |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="toms-wa">{{Cite web |url=https://www.tomshardware.com/3d-printing/washington-state-proposes-new-3d-printed-gun-controls-with-blocking-features-and-blueprint-detection-algorithm-proposal-would-carry-sentences-of-five-years-in-prison-usd15-000-fine-for-violation |title=Washington state proposes new 3D-printed gun controls with blocking features and blueprint detection algorithm |author=Stephen Warwick |publisher=Tom's Hardware |date=2026-01-19 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="wa-bill">{{Cite web |url=https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2321&Year=2025 |title=HB 2321 - Requiring three-dimensional printers be equipped with certain blocking technologies |publisher=Washington State Legislature |date=2026 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="toms-ca">{{Cite web |url=https://www.tomshardware.com/3d-printing/california-assembly-passes-3d-printer-bill-that-would-criminalize-bypassing-mandated-gun-blocking-software |title=California Assembly passes 3D printer bill that would criminalize bypassing mandated gun-blocking software |author=Luke James |publisher=Tom's Hardware |date=2026-05-30 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="ca-bill">{{Cite web |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2047 |title=AB-2047 Firearms: 3-dimensional printing blocking technology |publisher=California Legislative Information |date=2026-05-18 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="ca3">{{Cite web |url=https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/233058p.pdf |title=Defense Distributed v. Attorney General New Jersey, No. 23-3058 |publisher=United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit |date=2026-02-12 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="courthouse">{{Cite web |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/third-circuit-backs-new-jerseys-crackdown-on-3d-printed-gun-code/ |title=Third Circuit backs New Jersey's crackdown on 3D-printed gun code |publisher=Courthouse News Service |date=2026-02-12 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
</references>

[[Category:American legislation]]
[[Category:Right to Repair]]
[[Category:Digital rights management]]

New York 3D printer blocking technology mandate

2026-06-02T18:07:37Z

Xp: Fix citation formatting

{{#seo:
|description=New York's FY27 budget will require 3D printers sold in the state to carry blocking technology that scans print files against a firearms-blueprint library.
}}

'''New York's 3D printer blocking technology mandate''' is a state law that, once its rules are written, will prohibit the sale or delivery of any 3D printer in New York unless the machine is equipped with blocking technology that refuses to run a print job until the file has been checked by a firearms-blueprint detection algorithm against a state-maintained library of gun blueprints.<ref name="bill" /> The provision was enacted as Part C of the FY2026-2027 budget bill S. 9005-C / A. 10005-C, signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on May 27, 2026.<ref name="gov" /><ref name="bill" /> The device-sales requirement is not yet in force: it takes effect one year after the Division of Criminal Justice Services promulgates performance standards, which cannot happen until an expert working group reports, and a feasibility clause lets the working group defer the mandate if it finds the scanning technology is not technologically feasible.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Background==
The law responds to firearms that can be produced from digital design files on consumer additive-manufacturing hardware, including untraceable ghost guns and pistol-conversion devices that turn a semi-automatic handgun into a machine gun. Governor Hochul's office presented the budget measures as a response to illegal 3D-printed ghost guns and do-it-yourself machine guns, pairing the 3D-printer rules with new criminal penalties for digital gun files.<ref name="gov" /> The gun-safety group Everytown for Gun Safety characterized the package as shutting down what it called the ''"plastic pipeline"'' of do-it-yourself firearms.<ref name="everytown" />

'''Rather than moving as a standalone firearms bill with its own floor debate, the measure was enacted inside the Public Protection and General Government article of the state budget''', as Part C of S. 9005-C / A. 10005-C.<ref name="bill" /> Part C is split into Subpart A, which adds the criminal-law definitions and file offenses, and Subpart B, which creates the working group and file library in Executive Law § 837-aa and the device-sales requirement in General Business Law § 396-eeee.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="bill-pdf" /> The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action objected to the use of the budget as the vehicle, calling it a ''"strategic move to put divisive legislation into an all-or-nothing budget bill"'' rather than passing the measure as a standalone bill subject to its own debate.<ref name="nra" />

==What the law requires==
The operative command sits in the new General Business Law § 396-eeee (1):

<blockquote>''No person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation shall sell or deliver any three-dimensional printer in the state of New York unless such printer is equipped with blocking technology.''<ref name="bill" /></blockquote>

Executive Law § 837-aa (1)(b) defines that blocking technology as hardware, software, firmware, or other integrated measures that keep a printer from running any print job ''"unless the underlying three-dimensional printing file has been evaluated by a firearms blueprint detection algorithm and determined not to be a printing file that would produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts."''<ref name="bill" /> The detection algorithm itself is defined in § 837-aa (1)(c) as a software service that evaluates printing files, ''"whether in the form of stereolithography (STL) files or other computer aided design files or geometric code,"'' and flags any file that could produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts.<ref name="bill" />

To supply the data those algorithms check against, § 837-aa (3)(b) authorizes the Division of Criminal Justice Services to build and maintain a library of firearms blueprint files and illegal-firearm-parts blueprint files, ''"including scans of seized firearms."''<ref name="bill-pdf" /> The statute directs that the library be made available to printer manufacturers, software-development vendors, and experts in computational design or public safety, for building and improving the blocking technology and detection algorithms.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

The device requirement carries a narrow exception. Under § 396-eeee (5), the blocking-technology mandate does not apply to a sale or delivery to a buyer who holds both a New York gunsmith license under Penal Law § 400.00 and a federal firearms license, but only after that buyer submits a written request to the Attorney General and the Attorney General verifies the licenses and issues written authorization.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Enforcement is civil and runs through the Attorney General: a gun-industry member who violates § 396-eeee is liable to the people of New York for a flat civil penalty of $5,000 for each qualified product unlawfully sold, transferred, imported, distributed, manufactured, marketed, or offered for sale, and the Attorney General may also sue to enjoin violations and obtain restitution.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Implementation timeline==
The signing on May 27, 2026 did not switch on the device requirement. The § 837-aa working group and file-library provisions took effect on enactment, but the § 396-eeee sales prohibition is gated behind a chain of contingent steps and will not bind printer sellers for years.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="bill-pdf" />

Under § 837-aa (2), within 90 days of the section's effective date the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the Department of State, and the State University of New York will convene a working group of experts in additive-manufacturing technology, artificial intelligence and digital security, firearms regulation, public safety, and consumer product safety.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> No later than one year after it convenes, the working group is to recommend minimum safety standards for blocking technology.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> The Division then has, under § 837-aa (3)(a), up to nine months after receiving those recommendations to promulgate performance-standard rules. Subpart B's effective-date clause provides that the § 396-eeee sales requirement takes effect one year after those rules are promulgated.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Stacked end to end, those statutory intervals place the earliest possible effective date for the device-sales requirement more than two years after enactment.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

That chain can also stop entirely. The statute carries a feasibility escape hatch in § 837-aa (2):

<blockquote>''[I]f the working group determines that it is not technologically feasible to require three-dimensional printers sold in the state of New York to include blocking technology, the working group shall so report, and no regulations shall be required to be promulgated pursuant to this section, until such time as the working group determines that it is technologically feasible.''<ref name="bill-pdf" /></blockquote>

If the working group makes that finding, no rules issue and the sales requirement never takes effect, deferred indefinitely until a future finding of feasibility.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Scope and definitions==
The reach of the mandate turns on how broadly the statute defines a 3D printer. Penal Law § 265.00 (38), mirrored in Executive Law § 837-aa (1)(a), defines the term in two prongs:

<blockquote>''"Three-dimensional printer" means: (a) any machine capable of rendering a three-dimensional object from a digital design file using additive manufacturing; or (b) any machine capable of making three-dimensional modifications to an object from a digital design file using subtractive manufacturing.''<ref name="bill" /></blockquote>

The statute does not separately define ''"additive manufacturing,"'' ''"subtractive manufacturing,"'' or a CNC machine, and it contains no carve-out for machine size, intended purpose, or consumer use.<ref name="bill" /> Writing in Techdirt, Karl Bode argued that the law as drafted would reach open-source printer firmware projects such as Marlin, Klipper, and RepRap, offline office printers with no network connection, and CNC milling equipment.<ref name="techdirt" />

Under the statute, the minimum performance standards for blocking technology are left to the working group and the rules that follow, rather than written into the law itself.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Criminal provisions==
Subpart A adds new digital-file offenses to the Penal Law, alongside a new definition of ''"digital firearm manufacturing code"'' in § 265.00 (39) covering computer-aided design files or other code that can program a 3D printer or CNC milling machine to produce a firearm, ghost gun, unfinished frame or receiver, silencer, rapid-fire modification device, or major firearm component.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

Penal Law § 265.10 (11) makes it a class A misdemeanor to knowingly sell or distribute digital firearm manufacturing code to a person who lacks both a New York gunsmith license and a federal firearms license, subject to good-faith, out-of-state, and licensed-recipient exceptions stated in the text.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Section 265.10 (12) makes it a class A misdemeanor to possess such code with intent to illegally manufacture a firearm or to distribute the code to a prohibited or unlicensed New York person.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Both file offenses are misdemeanors, not felonies; the enacted text caps them at a class A misdemeanor.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

The one felony in Subpart A targets conversion devices rather than printers or files. Under § 265.10 (10), a dealer or gunsmith who, on or after May 31, 2027, sells, transfers, or ships a ''"convertible pistol"'', which the statute defines as a semi-automatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be converted into a machine gun by attaching a pistol converter, commits a class D felony.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Technical feasibility criticism==
The central technical objection is that no detection algorithm can reliably separate gun-part geometry from ordinary mechanical geometry. Phillip Torrone of Adafruit, whose critique Techdirt reproduced, argued that such a system would have to identify every possible firearm component from raw STL and G-code files without flagging the pipes, tubes, blocks, brackets, gears, and other common shapes that share geometric properties with gun parts, which he framed as a classification problem carrying high false-positive and false-negative rates.<ref name="techdirt" />

Slicing software converts a 3D model into machine instructions (G-code) that describe tool paths, not labeled parts, so the file a printer executes does not announce what object it builds. Furthermore, additive 3D manufacturing typically involves the use of additional temporary material such as support material<ref name="prusa-support-material">[https://help.prusa3d.com/article/support-material%201698 Support Material | Prusa Knowledge Base]. Retrieved 2026-06-02.</ref> and brims<ref name="prusa-brim">[https://help.prusa3d.com/article/skirt-and-brim_133969#brim Skirt and Brim | Prusa Knowledge Base]. Retrieved 2026-06-02.</ref>, which further complicates detection. Prints can be oriented in a variety of ways, which will cause the slicer to generate entirely different G-code. '''Many machines also run offline, and much of the firmware that drives consumer printers is open source, which means a scanning requirement cannot be enforced on a printer that never contacts the state library or that runs community firmware the mandate does not reach.'''<ref name="techdirt" /> The Electronic Frontier Foundation summarized the technical bet as ''"an unfeasible tech solution."''<ref name="eff" />

==Consumer-rights and surveillance concerns==
The consumer-rights objection is that the mandate puts a state-defined filter between owners and hardware they bought. The Electronic Frontier Foundation described print-blocking as ''"censorware,"'' software that it said ''"surveils every print,"'' and framed the requirement as surveillance of lawful printing carried out on the owner's own machine.<ref name="eff" />

A blocking-technology requirement is a manufacturer-side technical control fixed to hardware the buyer already owns. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has framed print blocking as anti-consumer for the same reason, treating a mandated filter on an owner's machine as a restriction on lawful use of property.<ref name="eff-permission" /> The group compared the requirement to [[Digital rights management|DRM]], calling manufacturer-provided software restrictions ''"an old tactic from the DRM playbook"'' and tracing the approach to the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]], which it said made bypassing DRM a federal crime.<ref name="eff-permission" /> Techdirt noted that much of the firmware running consumer printers, including open-source projects such as Marlin, Klipper, and RepRap, would not ship with a state-compliant detection algorithm, so a scanning requirement could push owners toward proprietary, locked-down machines.<ref name="techdirt" />

Furthermore, if someone encounters a false positive, the law does not outline any remediation or exemption procedure. The law does not even acknowledge nor even contain the term "false positive"<ref name="bill" />. Even if an algorithm is developed which has sufficiently low error rates on currently-available models, the error rate will generally increase once people start intentionally trying to find ways around it. This is known as an "Adversarial Example" and is a well-documented way to evade or deliberately confuse machine learning algorithms.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kurakin |first=Alexey |last2=Goodfellow |first2=Ian |last3=Bengio |first3=Samy |date=2017-02-11 |title=Adversarial examples in the physical world |url=https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.02533 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-06-02 |website=arXiv}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Molnar |first=Christoph |url=https://christophm.github.io/interpretable-ml-book/adversarial.html |title=Interpretable Machine Learning: A Guide For Making Black Box Models Explainable |date=2025-03-13 |edition=3rd}}</ref>

==Comparison to other states==
New York's measure is one of several state efforts in 2026 to regulate 3D-printed firearms through the printer rather than only the file. Washington's House Bill 2321, titled ''"Requiring three-dimensional printers be equipped with certain blocking technologies,"'' would require printers sold in the state to carry blocking features tied to a firearms blueprint detection algorithm.<ref name="wa-bill" /> The bill was prefiled on January 8, 2026 and referred to the House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee, where it remained as of June 1, 2026; it has not been enacted.<ref name="wa-bill" /> As reported by Tom's Hardware, the bill would prohibit sales after July 1, 2027 and set penalties as a class C felony carrying up to five years in prison and a $15,000 fine.<ref name="toms-wa" />

California's Assembly Bill 2047, authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, would require 3D printers sold in the state to be equipped with firearm blocking technology and would add Penal Code § 29187 to make it a misdemeanor to knowingly disable, deactivate, uninstall, or otherwise circumvent firearm blocking technology installed in a 3D printer with intent to manufacture firearms.<ref name="ca-bill" /> The Assembly passed the bill, last amended on May 18, 2026, and sent it to the state Senate, where it was pending as of June 1, 2026.<ref name="toms-ca" />

The underlying question of whether firearm code is protected speech has been litigated separately. In February 2026, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a challenge by Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation to New Jersey's restrictions on distributing 3D-printed gun code, holding that purely functional code with no expressive use is not protected speech and affirming dismissal because the plaintiffs had not pleaded that their files were expressive.<ref name="ca3" /><ref name="courthouse" />

==Reactions==
On the gun-safety side, the Governor's office presented the law as setting ''"first-in-the-nation minimum safety standards for 3D printers sold in New York to be equipped with basic technology that prevents the unlicensed, illegal production of lethal firearms and firearm parts,"'' and directed the Division of Criminal Justice Services to lead the expert task force.<ref name="gov" /> Everytown for Gun Safety praised the budget as nation-leading action against do-it-yourself machine guns and 3D-printed firearms.<ref name="everytown" />

On the maker and digital-rights side, the Electronic Frontier Foundation campaigned against the proposal under the banner ''"Stop New York's Attack on 3D Printing,"'' arguing the approach burdens lawful makers and rests on technology that does not exist.<ref name="eff" /> Technical writers at Techdirt, drawing on analysis from the open-source hardware company Adafruit, focused on the classification problem and the breadth of the printer definition rather than the policy goal, arguing the text as written reaches far beyond firearms and is unworkable as a scanning mandate.<ref name="techdirt" />

==See also==
*[[Right to Repair]]
*[[Digital rights management]]
*[[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]]
*[[Planned obsolescence]]
*[[Bambu Lab]]

==References==
<references>
<ref name="bill">{{Cite web |url=https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S9005/amendment/C |title=Senate Bill S9005C, FY2026-2027 budget (Public Protection and General Government), Part C |publisher=New York State Senate |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-01}} The two-prong three-dimensional printer definition, the § 837-aa(1)(b) blocking-technology definition, the § 837-aa(1)(c) firearms blueprint detection algorithm and STL/CAD/geometric-code clause, and the "Signed by Governor on May 27, 2026 (signed as Chapter 55)" status appear on this page.</ref>
<ref name="bill-pdf">{{Cite web |url=https://assembly.ny.gov/2026budget/2026_bills/enacted/A10005c.pdf |title=Enacted text of A. 10005-C / S. 9005-C, FY2026-2027 budget, Part C |publisher=New York State Assembly |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-01}} Full Part C provisions cited here (the § 396-eeee(5) exception, the § 396-eeee $5,000-per-product civil penalty and Attorney General injunction/restitution authority, the § 837-aa(3)(b) "scans of seized firearms" library clause, the § 837-aa(2) feasibility clause, the 90-day / one-year / nine-month / one-year-after-rules effective-date chain, and the criminal subdivisions at Penal Law § 265.00(39) and § 265.10(10)-(12) with the May 31, 2027 convertible-pistol date) appear in the enacted text.</ref>
<ref name="gov">{{Cite web |url=https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-signs-legislation-strengthen-public-safety-and-make |title=Keeping New Yorkers Safe: Governor Hochul Signs Legislation to Strengthen Public Safety |publisher=Office of Governor Kathy Hochul |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="everytown">{{Cite web |url=https://www.everytown.org/press/new-york-shuts-down-the-plastic-pipeline-governor-hochul-and-lawmakers-pass-nation-leading-measures-to-stop-the-spread-of-diy-machine-guns-and-3d-printed-firearms-in-fy27-budget/ |title=New York Shuts Down the 'Plastic Pipeline': Governor Hochul and Lawmakers Pass Nation-Leading Measures to Stop the Spread of DIY Machine Guns and 3D-Printed Firearms in FY27 Budget |publisher=Everytown for Gun Safety |date=2026 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="eff">{{Cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/stop-new-yorks-attack-3d-printing |title=Stop New York's Attack on 3D Printing |author=Rory Mir and Nathan Sheard |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=2026-04-16 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="techdirt">{{Cite web |url=https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/19/new-yorks-new-3d-printing-law-as-written-is-extremely-harmful-and-annoying/ |title=New York's New 3D Printing Law, As Written, Is Extremely Harmful And Annoying |author=Karl Bode |publisher=Techdirt |date=2026-02-19 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="eff-permission">{{Cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/print-blocking-anti-consumer-permission-print-part-1 |title=Print Blocking is Anti-Consumer: Permission to Print Part 1 |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=April 2026 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="nra">{{Cite web |url=https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260527/new-york-gov-kathy-hochul-signs-gun-ban-in-state-budget-process |title=New York: Gov. Kathy Hochul Signs Gun Ban in State Budget Process |publisher=NRA Institute for Legislative Action |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="toms-wa">{{Cite web |url=https://www.tomshardware.com/3d-printing/washington-state-proposes-new-3d-printed-gun-controls-with-blocking-features-and-blueprint-detection-algorithm-proposal-would-carry-sentences-of-five-years-in-prison-usd15-000-fine-for-violation |title=Washington state proposes new 3D-printed gun controls with blocking features and blueprint detection algorithm |author=Stephen Warwick |publisher=Tom's Hardware |date=2026-01-19 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="wa-bill">{{Cite web |url=https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2321&Year=2025 |title=HB 2321 - Requiring three-dimensional printers be equipped with certain blocking technologies |publisher=Washington State Legislature |date=2026 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="toms-ca">{{Cite web |url=https://www.tomshardware.com/3d-printing/california-assembly-passes-3d-printer-bill-that-would-criminalize-bypassing-mandated-gun-blocking-software |title=California Assembly passes 3D printer bill that would criminalize bypassing mandated gun-blocking software |author=Luke James |publisher=Tom's Hardware |date=2026-05-30 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="ca-bill">{{Cite web |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2047 |title=AB-2047 Firearms: 3-dimensional printing blocking technology |publisher=California Legislative Information |date=2026-05-18 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="ca3">{{Cite web |url=https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/233058p.pdf |title=Defense Distributed v. Attorney General New Jersey, No. 23-3058 |publisher=United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit |date=2026-02-12 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="courthouse">{{Cite web |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/third-circuit-backs-new-jerseys-crackdown-on-3d-printed-gun-code/ |title=Third Circuit backs New Jersey's crackdown on 3D-printed gun code |publisher=Courthouse News Service |date=2026-02-12 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
</references>

[[Category:American legislation]]
[[Category:Right to Repair]]
[[Category:Digital rights management]]

New York 3D printer blocking technology mandate

2026-06-02T17:54:52Z

Xp: Add adversarial examples

{{#seo:
|description=New York's FY27 budget will require 3D printers sold in the state to carry blocking technology that scans print files against a firearms-blueprint library.
}}

'''New York's 3D printer blocking technology mandate''' is a state law that, once its rules are written, will prohibit the sale or delivery of any 3D printer in New York unless the machine is equipped with blocking technology that refuses to run a print job until the file has been checked by a firearms-blueprint detection algorithm against a state-maintained library of gun blueprints.<ref name="bill" /> The provision was enacted as Part C of the FY2026-2027 budget bill S. 9005-C / A. 10005-C, signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on May 27, 2026.<ref name="gov" /><ref name="bill" /> The device-sales requirement is not yet in force: it takes effect one year after the Division of Criminal Justice Services promulgates performance standards, which cannot happen until an expert working group reports, and a feasibility clause lets the working group defer the mandate if it finds the scanning technology is not technologically feasible.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Background==
The law responds to firearms that can be produced from digital design files on consumer additive-manufacturing hardware, including untraceable ghost guns and pistol-conversion devices that turn a semi-automatic handgun into a machine gun. Governor Hochul's office presented the budget measures as a response to illegal 3D-printed ghost guns and do-it-yourself machine guns, pairing the 3D-printer rules with new criminal penalties for digital gun files.<ref name="gov" /> The gun-safety group Everytown for Gun Safety characterized the package as shutting down what it called the ''"plastic pipeline"'' of do-it-yourself firearms.<ref name="everytown" />

'''Rather than moving as a standalone firearms bill with its own floor debate, the measure was enacted inside the Public Protection and General Government article of the state budget''', as Part C of S. 9005-C / A. 10005-C.<ref name="bill" /> Part C is split into Subpart A, which adds the criminal-law definitions and file offenses, and Subpart B, which creates the working group and file library in Executive Law § 837-aa and the device-sales requirement in General Business Law § 396-eeee.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="bill-pdf" /> The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action objected to the use of the budget as the vehicle, calling it a ''"strategic move to put divisive legislation into an all-or-nothing budget bill"'' rather than passing the measure as a standalone bill subject to its own debate.<ref name="nra" />

==What the law requires==
The operative command sits in the new General Business Law § 396-eeee (1):

<blockquote>''No person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation shall sell or deliver any three-dimensional printer in the state of New York unless such printer is equipped with blocking technology.''<ref name="bill" /></blockquote>

Executive Law § 837-aa (1)(b) defines that blocking technology as hardware, software, firmware, or other integrated measures that keep a printer from running any print job ''"unless the underlying three-dimensional printing file has been evaluated by a firearms blueprint detection algorithm and determined not to be a printing file that would produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts."''<ref name="bill" /> The detection algorithm itself is defined in § 837-aa (1)(c) as a software service that evaluates printing files, ''"whether in the form of stereolithography (STL) files or other computer aided design files or geometric code,"'' and flags any file that could produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts.<ref name="bill" />

To supply the data those algorithms check against, § 837-aa (3)(b) authorizes the Division of Criminal Justice Services to build and maintain a library of firearms blueprint files and illegal-firearm-parts blueprint files, ''"including scans of seized firearms."''<ref name="bill-pdf" /> The statute directs that the library be made available to printer manufacturers, software-development vendors, and experts in computational design or public safety, for building and improving the blocking technology and detection algorithms.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

The device requirement carries a narrow exception. Under § 396-eeee (5), the blocking-technology mandate does not apply to a sale or delivery to a buyer who holds both a New York gunsmith license under Penal Law § 400.00 and a federal firearms license, but only after that buyer submits a written request to the Attorney General and the Attorney General verifies the licenses and issues written authorization.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Enforcement is civil and runs through the Attorney General: a gun-industry member who violates § 396-eeee is liable to the people of New York for a flat civil penalty of $5,000 for each qualified product unlawfully sold, transferred, imported, distributed, manufactured, marketed, or offered for sale, and the Attorney General may also sue to enjoin violations and obtain restitution.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Implementation timeline==
The signing on May 27, 2026 did not switch on the device requirement. The § 837-aa working group and file-library provisions took effect on enactment, but the § 396-eeee sales prohibition is gated behind a chain of contingent steps and will not bind printer sellers for years.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="bill-pdf" />

Under § 837-aa (2), within 90 days of the section's effective date the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the Department of State, and the State University of New York will convene a working group of experts in additive-manufacturing technology, artificial intelligence and digital security, firearms regulation, public safety, and consumer product safety.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> No later than one year after it convenes, the working group is to recommend minimum safety standards for blocking technology.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> The Division then has, under § 837-aa (3)(a), up to nine months after receiving those recommendations to promulgate performance-standard rules. Subpart B's effective-date clause provides that the § 396-eeee sales requirement takes effect one year after those rules are promulgated.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Stacked end to end, those statutory intervals place the earliest possible effective date for the device-sales requirement more than two years after enactment.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

That chain can also stop entirely. The statute carries a feasibility escape hatch in § 837-aa (2):

<blockquote>''[I]f the working group determines that it is not technologically feasible to require three-dimensional printers sold in the state of New York to include blocking technology, the working group shall so report, and no regulations shall be required to be promulgated pursuant to this section, until such time as the working group determines that it is technologically feasible.''<ref name="bill-pdf" /></blockquote>

If the working group makes that finding, no rules issue and the sales requirement never takes effect, deferred indefinitely until a future finding of feasibility.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Scope and definitions==
The reach of the mandate turns on how broadly the statute defines a 3D printer. Penal Law § 265.00 (38), mirrored in Executive Law § 837-aa (1)(a), defines the term in two prongs:

<blockquote>''"Three-dimensional printer" means: (a) any machine capable of rendering a three-dimensional object from a digital design file using additive manufacturing; or (b) any machine capable of making three-dimensional modifications to an object from a digital design file using subtractive manufacturing.''<ref name="bill" /></blockquote>

The statute does not separately define ''"additive manufacturing,"'' ''"subtractive manufacturing,"'' or a CNC machine, and it contains no carve-out for machine size, intended purpose, or consumer use.<ref name="bill" /> Writing in Techdirt, Karl Bode argued that the law as drafted would reach open-source printer firmware projects such as Marlin, Klipper, and RepRap, offline office printers with no network connection, and CNC milling equipment.<ref name="techdirt" />

Under the statute, the minimum performance standards for blocking technology are left to the working group and the rules that follow, rather than written into the law itself.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Criminal provisions==
Subpart A adds new digital-file offenses to the Penal Law, alongside a new definition of ''"digital firearm manufacturing code"'' in § 265.00 (39) covering computer-aided design files or other code that can program a 3D printer or CNC milling machine to produce a firearm, ghost gun, unfinished frame or receiver, silencer, rapid-fire modification device, or major firearm component.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

Penal Law § 265.10 (11) makes it a class A misdemeanor to knowingly sell or distribute digital firearm manufacturing code to a person who lacks both a New York gunsmith license and a federal firearms license, subject to good-faith, out-of-state, and licensed-recipient exceptions stated in the text.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Section 265.10 (12) makes it a class A misdemeanor to possess such code with intent to illegally manufacture a firearm or to distribute the code to a prohibited or unlicensed New York person.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Both file offenses are misdemeanors, not felonies; the enacted text caps them at a class A misdemeanor.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

The one felony in Subpart A targets conversion devices rather than printers or files. Under § 265.10 (10), a dealer or gunsmith who, on or after May 31, 2027, sells, transfers, or ships a ''"convertible pistol"'', which the statute defines as a semi-automatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be converted into a machine gun by attaching a pistol converter, commits a class D felony.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Technical feasibility criticism==
The central technical objection is that no detection algorithm can reliably separate gun-part geometry from ordinary mechanical geometry. Phillip Torrone of Adafruit, whose critique Techdirt reproduced, argued that such a system would have to identify every possible firearm component from raw STL and G-code files without flagging the pipes, tubes, blocks, brackets, gears, and other common shapes that share geometric properties with gun parts, which he framed as a classification problem carrying high false-positive and false-negative rates.<ref name="techdirt" />

Slicing software converts a 3D model into machine instructions (G-code) that describe tool paths, not labeled parts, so the file a printer executes does not announce what object it builds. Furthermore, additive 3D manufacturing typically involves the use of additional temporary material such as support material<ref name="prusa-support-material">[https://help.prusa3d.com/article/support-material%201698 Support Material | Prusa Knowledge Base]. Retrieved 2026-06-02.</ref> and brims<ref name="prusa-brim">[https://help.prusa3d.com/article/skirt-and-brim_133969#brim Skirt and Brim | Prusa Knowledge Base]. Retrieved 2026-06-02.</ref>, which further complicates detection. Prints can be oriented in a variety of ways, which will cause the slicer to generate entirely different G-code. '''Many machines also run offline, and much of the firmware that drives consumer printers is open source, which means a scanning requirement cannot be enforced on a printer that never contacts the state library or that runs community firmware the mandate does not reach.'''<ref name="techdirt" /> The Electronic Frontier Foundation summarized the technical bet as ''"an unfeasible tech solution."''<ref name="eff" />

==Consumer-rights and surveillance concerns==
The consumer-rights objection is that the mandate puts a state-defined filter between owners and hardware they bought. The Electronic Frontier Foundation described print-blocking as ''"censorware,"'' software that it said ''"surveils every print,"'' and framed the requirement as surveillance of lawful printing carried out on the owner's own machine.<ref name="eff" />

A blocking-technology requirement is a manufacturer-side technical control fixed to hardware the buyer already owns. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has framed print blocking as anti-consumer for the same reason, treating a mandated filter on an owner's machine as a restriction on lawful use of property.<ref name="eff-permission" /> The group compared the requirement to [[Digital rights management|DRM]], calling manufacturer-provided software restrictions ''"an old tactic from the DRM playbook"'' and tracing the approach to the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]], which it said made bypassing DRM a federal crime.<ref name="eff-permission" /> Techdirt noted that much of the firmware running consumer printers, including open-source projects such as Marlin, Klipper, and RepRap, would not ship with a state-compliant detection algorithm, so a scanning requirement could push owners toward proprietary, locked-down machines.<ref name="techdirt" />

Furthermore, if someone encounters a false positive, the law does not outline any remediation or exemption procedure. The law does not even acknowledge nor even contain the term "false positive"<ref name="bill" />. Even if an algorithm is developed which has sufficiently low error rates on currently-available models, the error rate will generally increase once people start intentionally trying to find ways around it. This is known as an "Adversarial Example" and is a well-documented way to evade or deliberately confuse machine learning algorithms.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kurakin, Goodfellow, Bengio |first=Alexey, Ian, Samy |date=2017-02-11 |title=Adversarial examples in the physical world |url=https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.02533?utm_source=chatgpt.com |url-status=live |access-date=2026-06-02 |website=arXiv}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Molnar |first=Christoph |url=https://christophm.github.io/interpretable-ml-book/adversarial.html |title=Interpretable Machine Learning: A Guide For Making Black Box Models Explainable |date=2025-03-13 |edition=3rd}}</ref>

==Comparison to other states==
New York's measure is one of several state efforts in 2026 to regulate 3D-printed firearms through the printer rather than only the file. Washington's House Bill 2321, titled ''"Requiring three-dimensional printers be equipped with certain blocking technologies,"'' would require printers sold in the state to carry blocking features tied to a firearms blueprint detection algorithm.<ref name="wa-bill" /> The bill was prefiled on January 8, 2026 and referred to the House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee, where it remained as of June 1, 2026; it has not been enacted.<ref name="wa-bill" /> As reported by Tom's Hardware, the bill would prohibit sales after July 1, 2027 and set penalties as a class C felony carrying up to five years in prison and a $15,000 fine.<ref name="toms-wa" />

California's Assembly Bill 2047, authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, would require 3D printers sold in the state to be equipped with firearm blocking technology and would add Penal Code § 29187 to make it a misdemeanor to knowingly disable, deactivate, uninstall, or otherwise circumvent firearm blocking technology installed in a 3D printer with intent to manufacture firearms.<ref name="ca-bill" /> The Assembly passed the bill, last amended on May 18, 2026, and sent it to the state Senate, where it was pending as of June 1, 2026.<ref name="toms-ca" />

The underlying question of whether firearm code is protected speech has been litigated separately. In February 2026, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a challenge by Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation to New Jersey's restrictions on distributing 3D-printed gun code, holding that purely functional code with no expressive use is not protected speech and affirming dismissal because the plaintiffs had not pleaded that their files were expressive.<ref name="ca3" /><ref name="courthouse" />

==Reactions==
On the gun-safety side, the Governor's office presented the law as setting ''"first-in-the-nation minimum safety standards for 3D printers sold in New York to be equipped with basic technology that prevents the unlicensed, illegal production of lethal firearms and firearm parts,"'' and directed the Division of Criminal Justice Services to lead the expert task force.<ref name="gov" /> Everytown for Gun Safety praised the budget as nation-leading action against do-it-yourself machine guns and 3D-printed firearms.<ref name="everytown" />

On the maker and digital-rights side, the Electronic Frontier Foundation campaigned against the proposal under the banner ''"Stop New York's Attack on 3D Printing,"'' arguing the approach burdens lawful makers and rests on technology that does not exist.<ref name="eff" /> Technical writers at Techdirt, drawing on analysis from the open-source hardware company Adafruit, focused on the classification problem and the breadth of the printer definition rather than the policy goal, arguing the text as written reaches far beyond firearms and is unworkable as a scanning mandate.<ref name="techdirt" />

==See also==
*[[Right to Repair]]
*[[Digital rights management]]
*[[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]]
*[[Planned obsolescence]]
*[[Bambu Lab]]

==References==
<references>
<ref name="bill">{{Cite web |url=https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S9005/amendment/C |title=Senate Bill S9005C, FY2026-2027 budget (Public Protection and General Government), Part C |publisher=New York State Senate |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-01}} The two-prong three-dimensional printer definition, the § 837-aa(1)(b) blocking-technology definition, the § 837-aa(1)(c) firearms blueprint detection algorithm and STL/CAD/geometric-code clause, and the "Signed by Governor on May 27, 2026 (signed as Chapter 55)" status appear on this page.</ref>
<ref name="bill-pdf">{{Cite web |url=https://assembly.ny.gov/2026budget/2026_bills/enacted/A10005c.pdf |title=Enacted text of A. 10005-C / S. 9005-C, FY2026-2027 budget, Part C |publisher=New York State Assembly |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-01}} Full Part C provisions cited here (the § 396-eeee(5) exception, the § 396-eeee $5,000-per-product civil penalty and Attorney General injunction/restitution authority, the § 837-aa(3)(b) "scans of seized firearms" library clause, the § 837-aa(2) feasibility clause, the 90-day / one-year / nine-month / one-year-after-rules effective-date chain, and the criminal subdivisions at Penal Law § 265.00(39) and § 265.10(10)-(12) with the May 31, 2027 convertible-pistol date) appear in the enacted text.</ref>
<ref name="gov">{{Cite web |url=https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-signs-legislation-strengthen-public-safety-and-make |title=Keeping New Yorkers Safe: Governor Hochul Signs Legislation to Strengthen Public Safety |publisher=Office of Governor Kathy Hochul |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="everytown">{{Cite web |url=https://www.everytown.org/press/new-york-shuts-down-the-plastic-pipeline-governor-hochul-and-lawmakers-pass-nation-leading-measures-to-stop-the-spread-of-diy-machine-guns-and-3d-printed-firearms-in-fy27-budget/ |title=New York Shuts Down the 'Plastic Pipeline': Governor Hochul and Lawmakers Pass Nation-Leading Measures to Stop the Spread of DIY Machine Guns and 3D-Printed Firearms in FY27 Budget |publisher=Everytown for Gun Safety |date=2026 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="eff">{{Cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/stop-new-yorks-attack-3d-printing |title=Stop New York's Attack on 3D Printing |author=Rory Mir and Nathan Sheard |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=2026-04-16 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="techdirt">{{Cite web |url=https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/19/new-yorks-new-3d-printing-law-as-written-is-extremely-harmful-and-annoying/ |title=New York's New 3D Printing Law, As Written, Is Extremely Harmful And Annoying |author=Karl Bode |publisher=Techdirt |date=2026-02-19 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="eff-permission">{{Cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/print-blocking-anti-consumer-permission-print-part-1 |title=Print Blocking is Anti-Consumer: Permission to Print Part 1 |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=April 2026 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="nra">{{Cite web |url=https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260527/new-york-gov-kathy-hochul-signs-gun-ban-in-state-budget-process |title=New York: Gov. Kathy Hochul Signs Gun Ban in State Budget Process |publisher=NRA Institute for Legislative Action |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="toms-wa">{{Cite web |url=https://www.tomshardware.com/3d-printing/washington-state-proposes-new-3d-printed-gun-controls-with-blocking-features-and-blueprint-detection-algorithm-proposal-would-carry-sentences-of-five-years-in-prison-usd15-000-fine-for-violation |title=Washington state proposes new 3D-printed gun controls with blocking features and blueprint detection algorithm |author=Stephen Warwick |publisher=Tom's Hardware |date=2026-01-19 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="wa-bill">{{Cite web |url=https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2321&Year=2025 |title=HB 2321 - Requiring three-dimensional printers be equipped with certain blocking technologies |publisher=Washington State Legislature |date=2026 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="toms-ca">{{Cite web |url=https://www.tomshardware.com/3d-printing/california-assembly-passes-3d-printer-bill-that-would-criminalize-bypassing-mandated-gun-blocking-software |title=California Assembly passes 3D printer bill that would criminalize bypassing mandated gun-blocking software |author=Luke James |publisher=Tom's Hardware |date=2026-05-30 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="ca-bill">{{Cite web |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2047 |title=AB-2047 Firearms: 3-dimensional printing blocking technology |publisher=California Legislative Information |date=2026-05-18 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="ca3">{{Cite web |url=https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/233058p.pdf |title=Defense Distributed v. Attorney General New Jersey, No. 23-3058 |publisher=United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit |date=2026-02-12 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="courthouse">{{Cite web |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/third-circuit-backs-new-jerseys-crackdown-on-3d-printed-gun-code/ |title=Third Circuit backs New Jersey's crackdown on 3D-printed gun code |publisher=Courthouse News Service |date=2026-02-12 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
</references>

[[Category:American legislation]]
[[Category:Right to Repair]]
[[Category:Digital rights management]]

New York 3D printer blocking technology mandate

2026-06-02T14:56:47Z

Xp: Add note about additional material complicating g-code detection

{{#seo:
|description=New York's FY27 budget will require 3D printers sold in the state to carry blocking technology that scans print files against a firearms-blueprint library.
}}

'''New York's 3D printer blocking technology mandate''' is a state law that, once its rules are written, will prohibit the sale or delivery of any 3D printer in New York unless the machine is equipped with blocking technology that refuses to run a print job until the file has been checked by a firearms-blueprint detection algorithm against a state-maintained library of gun blueprints.<ref name="bill" /> The provision was enacted as Part C of the FY2026-2027 budget bill S. 9005-C / A. 10005-C, signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on May 27, 2026.<ref name="gov" /><ref name="bill" /> The device-sales requirement is not yet in force: it takes effect one year after the Division of Criminal Justice Services promulgates performance standards, which cannot happen until an expert working group reports, and a feasibility clause lets the working group defer the mandate if it finds the scanning technology is not technologically feasible.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Background==
The law responds to firearms that can be produced from digital design files on consumer additive-manufacturing hardware, including untraceable ghost guns and pistol-conversion devices that turn a semi-automatic handgun into a machine gun. Governor Hochul's office presented the budget measures as a response to illegal 3D-printed ghost guns and do-it-yourself machine guns, pairing the 3D-printer rules with new criminal penalties for digital gun files.<ref name="gov" /> The gun-safety group Everytown for Gun Safety characterized the package as shutting down what it called the ''"plastic pipeline"'' of do-it-yourself firearms.<ref name="everytown" />

'''Rather than moving as a standalone firearms bill with its own floor debate, the measure was enacted inside the Public Protection and General Government article of the state budget''', as Part C of S. 9005-C / A. 10005-C.<ref name="bill" /> Part C is split into Subpart A, which adds the criminal-law definitions and file offenses, and Subpart B, which creates the working group and file library in Executive Law § 837-aa and the device-sales requirement in General Business Law § 396-eeee.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="bill-pdf" /> The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action objected to the use of the budget as the vehicle, calling it a ''"strategic move to put divisive legislation into an all-or-nothing budget bill"'' rather than passing the measure as a standalone bill subject to its own debate.<ref name="nra" />

==What the law requires==
The operative command sits in the new General Business Law § 396-eeee (1):

<blockquote>''No person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation shall sell or deliver any three-dimensional printer in the state of New York unless such printer is equipped with blocking technology.''<ref name="bill" /></blockquote>

Executive Law § 837-aa (1)(b) defines that blocking technology as hardware, software, firmware, or other integrated measures that keep a printer from running any print job ''"unless the underlying three-dimensional printing file has been evaluated by a firearms blueprint detection algorithm and determined not to be a printing file that would produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts."''<ref name="bill" /> The detection algorithm itself is defined in § 837-aa (1)(c) as a software service that evaluates printing files, ''"whether in the form of stereolithography (STL) files or other computer aided design files or geometric code,"'' and flags any file that could produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts.<ref name="bill" />

To supply the data those algorithms check against, § 837-aa (3)(b) authorizes the Division of Criminal Justice Services to build and maintain a library of firearms blueprint files and illegal-firearm-parts blueprint files, ''"including scans of seized firearms."''<ref name="bill-pdf" /> The statute directs that the library be made available to printer manufacturers, software-development vendors, and experts in computational design or public safety, for building and improving the blocking technology and detection algorithms.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

The device requirement carries a narrow exception. Under § 396-eeee (5), the blocking-technology mandate does not apply to a sale or delivery to a buyer who holds both a New York gunsmith license under Penal Law § 400.00 and a federal firearms license, but only after that buyer submits a written request to the Attorney General and the Attorney General verifies the licenses and issues written authorization.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Enforcement is civil and runs through the Attorney General: a gun-industry member who violates § 396-eeee is liable to the people of New York for a flat civil penalty of $5,000 for each qualified product unlawfully sold, transferred, imported, distributed, manufactured, marketed, or offered for sale, and the Attorney General may also sue to enjoin violations and obtain restitution.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Implementation timeline==
The signing on May 27, 2026 did not switch on the device requirement. The § 837-aa working group and file-library provisions took effect on enactment, but the § 396-eeee sales prohibition is gated behind a chain of contingent steps and will not bind printer sellers for years.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="bill-pdf" />

Under § 837-aa (2), within 90 days of the section's effective date the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the Department of State, and the State University of New York will convene a working group of experts in additive-manufacturing technology, artificial intelligence and digital security, firearms regulation, public safety, and consumer product safety.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> No later than one year after it convenes, the working group is to recommend minimum safety standards for blocking technology.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> The Division then has, under § 837-aa (3)(a), up to nine months after receiving those recommendations to promulgate performance-standard rules. Subpart B's effective-date clause provides that the § 396-eeee sales requirement takes effect one year after those rules are promulgated.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Stacked end to end, those statutory intervals place the earliest possible effective date for the device-sales requirement more than two years after enactment.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

That chain can also stop entirely. The statute carries a feasibility escape hatch in § 837-aa (2):

<blockquote>''[I]f the working group determines that it is not technologically feasible to require three-dimensional printers sold in the state of New York to include blocking technology, the working group shall so report, and no regulations shall be required to be promulgated pursuant to this section, until such time as the working group determines that it is technologically feasible.''<ref name="bill-pdf" /></blockquote>

If the working group makes that finding, no rules issue and the sales requirement never takes effect, deferred indefinitely until a future finding of feasibility.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Scope and definitions==
The reach of the mandate turns on how broadly the statute defines a 3D printer. Penal Law § 265.00 (38), mirrored in Executive Law § 837-aa (1)(a), defines the term in two prongs:

<blockquote>''"Three-dimensional printer" means: (a) any machine capable of rendering a three-dimensional object from a digital design file using additive manufacturing; or (b) any machine capable of making three-dimensional modifications to an object from a digital design file using subtractive manufacturing.''<ref name="bill" /></blockquote>

The statute does not separately define ''"additive manufacturing,"'' ''"subtractive manufacturing,"'' or a CNC machine, and it contains no carve-out for machine size, intended purpose, or consumer use.<ref name="bill" /> Writing in Techdirt, Karl Bode argued that the law as drafted would reach open-source printer firmware projects such as Marlin, Klipper, and RepRap, offline office printers with no network connection, and CNC milling equipment.<ref name="techdirt" />

Under the statute, the minimum performance standards for blocking technology are left to the working group and the rules that follow, rather than written into the law itself.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Criminal provisions==
Subpart A adds new digital-file offenses to the Penal Law, alongside a new definition of ''"digital firearm manufacturing code"'' in § 265.00 (39) covering computer-aided design files or other code that can program a 3D printer or CNC milling machine to produce a firearm, ghost gun, unfinished frame or receiver, silencer, rapid-fire modification device, or major firearm component.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

Penal Law § 265.10 (11) makes it a class A misdemeanor to knowingly sell or distribute digital firearm manufacturing code to a person who lacks both a New York gunsmith license and a federal firearms license, subject to good-faith, out-of-state, and licensed-recipient exceptions stated in the text.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Section 265.10 (12) makes it a class A misdemeanor to possess such code with intent to illegally manufacture a firearm or to distribute the code to a prohibited or unlicensed New York person.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Both file offenses are misdemeanors, not felonies; the enacted text caps them at a class A misdemeanor.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

The one felony in Subpart A targets conversion devices rather than printers or files. Under § 265.10 (10), a dealer or gunsmith who, on or after May 31, 2027, sells, transfers, or ships a ''"convertible pistol"'', which the statute defines as a semi-automatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be converted into a machine gun by attaching a pistol converter, commits a class D felony.<ref name="bill-pdf" />

==Technical feasibility criticism==
The central technical objection is that no detection algorithm can reliably separate gun-part geometry from ordinary mechanical geometry. Phillip Torrone of Adafruit, whose critique Techdirt reproduced, argued that such a system would have to identify every possible firearm component from raw STL and G-code files without flagging the pipes, tubes, blocks, brackets, gears, and other common shapes that share geometric properties with gun parts, which he framed as a classification problem carrying high false-positive and false-negative rates.<ref name="techdirt" />

Slicing software converts a 3D model into machine instructions (G-code) that describe tool paths, not labeled parts, so the file a printer executes does not announce what object it builds. Furthermore, additive 3D manufacturing typically involves the use of additional temporary material such as support material<ref name="prusa-support-material">[https://help.prusa3d.com/article/support-material%201698 Support Material | Prusa Knowledge Base]. Retrieved 2026-06-02.</ref> and brims<ref name="prusa-brim">[https://help.prusa3d.com/article/skirt-and-brim_133969#brim Skirt and Brim | Prusa Knowledge Base]. Retrieved 2026-06-02.</ref>, which further complicates detection. Prints can be oriented in a variety of ways, which will cause the slicer to generate entirely different G-code. '''Many machines also run offline, and much of the firmware that drives consumer printers is open source, which means a scanning requirement cannot be enforced on a printer that never contacts the state library or that runs community firmware the mandate does not reach.'''<ref name="techdirt" /> The Electronic Frontier Foundation summarized the technical bet as ''"an unfeasible tech solution."''<ref name="eff" />

==Consumer-rights and surveillance concerns==
The consumer-rights objection is that the mandate puts a state-defined filter between owners and hardware they bought. The Electronic Frontier Foundation described print-blocking as ''"censorware,"'' software that it said ''"surveils every print,"'' and framed the requirement as surveillance of lawful printing carried out on the owner's own machine.<ref name="eff" />

A blocking-technology requirement is a manufacturer-side technical control fixed to hardware the buyer already owns. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has framed print blocking as anti-consumer for the same reason, treating a mandated filter on an owner's machine as a restriction on lawful use of property.<ref name="eff-permission" /> The group compared the requirement to [[Digital rights management|DRM]], calling manufacturer-provided software restrictions ''"an old tactic from the DRM playbook"'' and tracing the approach to the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]], which it said made bypassing DRM a federal crime.<ref name="eff-permission" /> Techdirt noted that much of the firmware running consumer printers, including open-source projects such as Marlin, Klipper, and RepRap, would not ship with a state-compliant detection algorithm, so a scanning requirement could push owners toward proprietary, locked-down machines.<ref name="techdirt" />

==Comparison to other states==
New York's measure is one of several state efforts in 2026 to regulate 3D-printed firearms through the printer rather than only the file. Washington's House Bill 2321, titled ''"Requiring three-dimensional printers be equipped with certain blocking technologies,"'' would require printers sold in the state to carry blocking features tied to a firearms blueprint detection algorithm.<ref name="wa-bill" /> The bill was prefiled on January 8, 2026 and referred to the House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee, where it remained as of June 1, 2026; it has not been enacted.<ref name="wa-bill" /> As reported by Tom's Hardware, the bill would prohibit sales after July 1, 2027 and set penalties as a class C felony carrying up to five years in prison and a $15,000 fine.<ref name="toms-wa" />

California's Assembly Bill 2047, authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, would require 3D printers sold in the state to be equipped with firearm blocking technology and would add Penal Code § 29187 to make it a misdemeanor to knowingly disable, deactivate, uninstall, or otherwise circumvent firearm blocking technology installed in a 3D printer with intent to manufacture firearms.<ref name="ca-bill" /> The Assembly passed the bill, last amended on May 18, 2026, and sent it to the state Senate, where it was pending as of June 1, 2026.<ref name="toms-ca" />

The underlying question of whether firearm code is protected speech has been litigated separately. In February 2026, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a challenge by Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation to New Jersey's restrictions on distributing 3D-printed gun code, holding that purely functional code with no expressive use is not protected speech and affirming dismissal because the plaintiffs had not pleaded that their files were expressive.<ref name="ca3" /><ref name="courthouse" />

==Reactions==
On the gun-safety side, the Governor's office presented the law as setting ''"first-in-the-nation minimum safety standards for 3D printers sold in New York to be equipped with basic technology that prevents the unlicensed, illegal production of lethal firearms and firearm parts,"'' and directed the Division of Criminal Justice Services to lead the expert task force.<ref name="gov" /> Everytown for Gun Safety praised the budget as nation-leading action against do-it-yourself machine guns and 3D-printed firearms.<ref name="everytown" />

On the maker and digital-rights side, the Electronic Frontier Foundation campaigned against the proposal under the banner ''"Stop New York's Attack on 3D Printing,"'' arguing the approach burdens lawful makers and rests on technology that does not exist.<ref name="eff" /> Technical writers at Techdirt, drawing on analysis from the open-source hardware company Adafruit, focused on the classification problem and the breadth of the printer definition rather than the policy goal, arguing the text as written reaches far beyond firearms and is unworkable as a scanning mandate.<ref name="techdirt" />

==See also==
*[[Right to Repair]]
*[[Digital rights management]]
*[[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]]
*[[Planned obsolescence]]
*[[Bambu Lab]]

==References==
<references>
<ref name="bill">{{Cite web |url=https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S9005/amendment/C |title=Senate Bill S9005C, FY2026-2027 budget (Public Protection and General Government), Part C |publisher=New York State Senate |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-01}} The two-prong three-dimensional printer definition, the § 837-aa(1)(b) blocking-technology definition, the § 837-aa(1)(c) firearms blueprint detection algorithm and STL/CAD/geometric-code clause, and the "Signed by Governor on May 27, 2026 (signed as Chapter 55)" status appear on this page.</ref>
<ref name="bill-pdf">{{Cite web |url=https://assembly.ny.gov/2026budget/2026_bills/enacted/A10005c.pdf |title=Enacted text of A. 10005-C / S. 9005-C, FY2026-2027 budget, Part C |publisher=New York State Assembly |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-01}} Full Part C provisions cited here (the § 396-eeee(5) exception, the § 396-eeee $5,000-per-product civil penalty and Attorney General injunction/restitution authority, the § 837-aa(3)(b) "scans of seized firearms" library clause, the § 837-aa(2) feasibility clause, the 90-day / one-year / nine-month / one-year-after-rules effective-date chain, and the criminal subdivisions at Penal Law § 265.00(39) and § 265.10(10)-(12) with the May 31, 2027 convertible-pistol date) appear in the enacted text.</ref>
<ref name="gov">{{Cite web |url=https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-signs-legislation-strengthen-public-safety-and-make |title=Keeping New Yorkers Safe: Governor Hochul Signs Legislation to Strengthen Public Safety |publisher=Office of Governor Kathy Hochul |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="everytown">{{Cite web |url=https://www.everytown.org/press/new-york-shuts-down-the-plastic-pipeline-governor-hochul-and-lawmakers-pass-nation-leading-measures-to-stop-the-spread-of-diy-machine-guns-and-3d-printed-firearms-in-fy27-budget/ |title=New York Shuts Down the 'Plastic Pipeline': Governor Hochul and Lawmakers Pass Nation-Leading Measures to Stop the Spread of DIY Machine Guns and 3D-Printed Firearms in FY27 Budget |publisher=Everytown for Gun Safety |date=2026 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="eff">{{Cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/stop-new-yorks-attack-3d-printing |title=Stop New York's Attack on 3D Printing |author=Rory Mir and Nathan Sheard |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=2026-04-16 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="techdirt">{{Cite web |url=https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/19/new-yorks-new-3d-printing-law-as-written-is-extremely-harmful-and-annoying/ |title=New York's New 3D Printing Law, As Written, Is Extremely Harmful And Annoying |author=Karl Bode |publisher=Techdirt |date=2026-02-19 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="eff-permission">{{Cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/print-blocking-anti-consumer-permission-print-part-1 |title=Print Blocking is Anti-Consumer: Permission to Print Part 1 |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=April 2026 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="nra">{{Cite web |url=https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260527/new-york-gov-kathy-hochul-signs-gun-ban-in-state-budget-process |title=New York: Gov. Kathy Hochul Signs Gun Ban in State Budget Process |publisher=NRA Institute for Legislative Action |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="toms-wa">{{Cite web |url=https://www.tomshardware.com/3d-printing/washington-state-proposes-new-3d-printed-gun-controls-with-blocking-features-and-blueprint-detection-algorithm-proposal-would-carry-sentences-of-five-years-in-prison-usd15-000-fine-for-violation |title=Washington state proposes new 3D-printed gun controls with blocking features and blueprint detection algorithm |author=Stephen Warwick |publisher=Tom's Hardware |date=2026-01-19 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="wa-bill">{{Cite web |url=https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2321&Year=2025 |title=HB 2321 - Requiring three-dimensional printers be equipped with certain blocking technologies |publisher=Washington State Legislature |date=2026 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="toms-ca">{{Cite web |url=https://www.tomshardware.com/3d-printing/california-assembly-passes-3d-printer-bill-that-would-criminalize-bypassing-mandated-gun-blocking-software |title=California Assembly passes 3D printer bill that would criminalize bypassing mandated gun-blocking software |author=Luke James |publisher=Tom's Hardware |date=2026-05-30 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="ca-bill">{{Cite web |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2047 |title=AB-2047 Firearms: 3-dimensional printing blocking technology |publisher=California Legislative Information |date=2026-05-18 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="ca3">{{Cite web |url=https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/233058p.pdf |title=Defense Distributed v. Attorney General New Jersey, No. 23-3058 |publisher=United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit |date=2026-02-12 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
<ref name="courthouse">{{Cite web |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/third-circuit-backs-new-jerseys-crackdown-on-3d-printed-gun-code/ |title=Third Circuit backs New Jersey's crackdown on 3D-printed gun code |publisher=Courthouse News Service |date=2026-02-12 |access-date=2026-06-01}}</ref>
</references>

[[Category:Legislation]]
[[Category:Right to Repair]]
[[Category:Digital rights management]]

YouTube

2025-01-30T22:09:27Z

Xp: Fix missing heading

{{StubNotice}}

{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = YouTube
| Release Year = 2005
| Product Type = Video sharing and streaming
| In Production = Yes
| Official Website = https://youtube.com
| Logo = YouTube.png
}}

'''[[wikipedia:YouTube|YouTube]]''', founded in 2005 by Steve Chen, Chad Hurley, and Jawed Karim, is a global video-sharing platform and one of the most visited websites in the world. Acquired by [[Google]] in 2006, YouTube has since become the dominant platform for sharing videos on the internet.

YouTube's business model is built around advertising revenue, with creators earning money through ad views, subscriptions, and other monetization options. The platform hosts a wide range of content, including music videos, tutorials, news, vlogs, and live streams. YouTube has also begun offering subscription services, such as YouTube Premium and YouTube TV, for ad-free experiences, exclusive content, and live television.<ref>[[wikipedia:YouTube|"YouTube"]] - wikipedia.org -accessed 2025-01-30</ref>

YouTube has faced criticism and regulatory scrutiny on multiple fronts. Concerns have been raised about content moderation policies, the platform's role in the spread of misinformation, and its impact on user privacy, particularly in relation to data collection practices. Additionally, YouTube has been under fire for its algorithms, which some argue promote harmful or divisive content to maximize engagement.

==Anti-consumer actions==

===Advertising overload in YouTube===
:See also: [[Advertising overload|Advertising Overload]]
Advertisements are YouTube's primary source of revenue,<ref>https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/our-commitments/sharing-revenue/</ref> but because the platform is run by a publicly shared parent company, it is forced to grow its revenue by any means necessary. This has led to advertisements becoming more pervasive on the platform<ref>https://www.33rdsquare.com/why-youtube-has-so-many-ads-and-why-there-will-probably-be-more/</ref> such as an increasing number of spaces for static ads, longer ad breaks (which some users have documented being longer than the videos they watch<ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/youtube-long-unskippable-ads-problem-3519957/</ref><ref>https://www.pcworld.com/article/2590352/hours-long-unskippable-ads-spotted-on-youtube-whats-going-on.html</ref>), increased ad frequency in videos,<ref>https://www.howtogeek.com/youtube-is-adding-even-more-ads/</ref> and poorer quality ads.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRjGn54O4Zg</ref><ref>https://sherwood.news/business/mobile-game-ads-industry-fake-misleading/</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsKlfN9phAs</ref> Practices are also put into place in order to force non-paying users into seeing these ads as well, such as subscription-gating playing videos in the background.<ref>"Background play so you can watch while using other apps or with your screen locked" Via: https://www.youtube.com/premium?ybp=Sg0IBhIJdW5saW1pdGVk4AEB</ref> Even these paywalls are beginning to lose their value, as users have reported seeing ads while paying for YouTube Premium.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/18ll7y6/i_have_youtube_premium_why_am_i_getting_adds/</ref><ref>https://9to5google.com/2024/11/13/youtube-premium-ads-statement/</ref>

Furthermore, even if a user pays for YouTube premium, they do not necessarily receive an ad-free experience - they may still see ads within the video they watch, such as sponsored segments. YouTube has added a "skip" feature, but it has been reported that this does not work consistently.<ref>[https://www.dexerto.com/youtube/youtube-now-lets-you-skip-sponsored-segments-but-youll-have-to-pay-for-it-2872784/ YouTube now lets you skip sponsored segments — but you’ll have to pay for it] Dexerto. August 22, 2024. Retrieved January 30, 2024.</ref>

===Crackdown against ad-blockers===

Related to the incessant usage of ads on the platform, consumers have been needing to use adblockers while on the platform merely to watch their videos. Unfortunately, Google sparked a game of cat and mouse, and has been attempting to integrate a variant of DRM onto YouTube to make consumers watch ads.<ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2024/06/20/youtubes-ad-blocker-ban-just-got-even-bigger/</ref><ref>https://arstechnica.com/google/2023/11/youtube-tries-to-kill-ad-blockers-in-push-for-ad-dollars-premium-subs/</ref> However, these attempts usually only work for a short period before AdBlock tools find new ways to circumvent the advertisements,<ref>https://community.brave.com/t/brave-no-longer-blocking-youtube-ads-as-of-march-27-2024/540032/2</ref> resulting in these actions taking place reflecting the Streisand Effect. 

==== Offline video DRM ====
The YouTube Mobile app allows you to download videos for offline consumption if you have a YouTube Premium subscription.<ref name=":0">https://www.youtube.com/premium </ref> However, the app's DRM prevents you from watching downloaded videos, unless the app has "phoned home" in the last 48 hours.<ref>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6141269</ref> This caveat is not clearly disclosed on the main YouTube Premium page, instead requiring the user to navigate support articles to discover this limitation.

===Paywalling standard browser features===
Another premium feature of the YouTube mobile app is the ability to play videos in the background.<ref name=":0" /> Without a premium subscription, neither the app nor a web browser will play YouTube videos in the background. However, the default HTML5 video player supports this with no extra effort needed from the developer.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Google]]
[[Category:Social media companies]]

YouTube

2025-01-30T22:03:30Z

Xp: Add more YT premium features

{{StubNotice}}

{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = YouTube
| Release Year = 2005
| Product Type = Video sharing and streaming
| In Production = Yes
| Official Website = https://youtube.com
| Logo = YouTube.png
}}

'''[[wikipedia:YouTube|YouTube]]''', founded in 2005 by Steve Chen, Chad Hurley, and Jawed Karim, is a global video-sharing platform and one of the most visited websites in the world. Acquired by [[Google]] in 2006, YouTube has since become the dominant platform for sharing videos on the internet.

YouTube's business model is built around advertising revenue, with creators earning money through ad views, subscriptions, and other monetization options. The platform hosts a wide range of content, including music videos, tutorials, news, vlogs, and live streams. YouTube has also begun offering subscription services, such as YouTube Premium and YouTube TV, for ad-free experiences, exclusive content, and live television.<ref>[[wikipedia:YouTube|"YouTube"]] - wikipedia.org -accessed 2025-01-30</ref>

YouTube has faced criticism and regulatory scrutiny on multiple fronts. Concerns have been raised about content moderation policies, the platform's role in the spread of misinformation, and its impact on user privacy, particularly in relation to data collection practices. Additionally, YouTube has been under fire for its algorithms, which some argue promote harmful or divisive content to maximize engagement.

==Anti-consumer actions==

===Advertising overload in YouTube===
:See also: [[Advertising overload|Advertising Overload]]
Advertisements are YouTube's primary source of revenue,<ref>https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/our-commitments/sharing-revenue/</ref> but because the platform is run by a publicly shared parent company, it is forced to grow its revenue by any means necessary. This has led to advertisements becoming more pervasive on the platform<ref>https://www.33rdsquare.com/why-youtube-has-so-many-ads-and-why-there-will-probably-be-more/</ref> such as an increasing number of spaces for static ads, longer ad breaks (which some users have documented being longer than the videos they watch<ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/youtube-long-unskippable-ads-problem-3519957/</ref><ref>https://www.pcworld.com/article/2590352/hours-long-unskippable-ads-spotted-on-youtube-whats-going-on.html</ref>), increased ad frequency in videos,<ref>https://www.howtogeek.com/youtube-is-adding-even-more-ads/</ref> and poorer quality ads.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRjGn54O4Zg</ref><ref>https://sherwood.news/business/mobile-game-ads-industry-fake-misleading/</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsKlfN9phAs</ref> Practices are also put into place in order to force non-paying users into seeing these ads as well, such as subscription-gating playing videos in the background.<ref>"Background play so you can watch while using other apps or with your screen locked" Via: https://www.youtube.com/premium?ybp=Sg0IBhIJdW5saW1pdGVk4AEB</ref> Even these paywalls are beginning to lose their value, as users have reported seeing ads while paying for YouTube Premium.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/18ll7y6/i_have_youtube_premium_why_am_i_getting_adds/</ref><ref>https://9to5google.com/2024/11/13/youtube-premium-ads-statement/</ref>

Furthermore, even if a user pays for YouTube premium, they do not necessarily receive an ad-free experience - they may still see ads within the video they watch, such as sponsored segments. YouTube has added a "skip" feature, but it has been reported that this does not work consistently.<ref>[https://www.dexerto.com/youtube/youtube-now-lets-you-skip-sponsored-segments-but-youll-have-to-pay-for-it-2872784/ YouTube now lets you skip sponsored segments — but you’ll have to pay for it] Dexerto. August 22, 2024. Retrieved January 30, 2024.</ref>

===Crackdown against ad-blockers===

Related to the incessant usage of ads on the platform, consumers have been needing to use adblockers while on the platform merely to watch their videos. Unfortunately, Google sparked a game of cat and mouse, and has been attempting to integrate a variant of DRM onto YouTube to make consumers watch ads.<ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2024/06/20/youtubes-ad-blocker-ban-just-got-even-bigger/</ref><ref>https://arstechnica.com/google/2023/11/youtube-tries-to-kill-ad-blockers-in-push-for-ad-dollars-premium-subs/</ref> However, these attempts usually only work for a short period before AdBlock tools find new ways to circumvent the advertisements,<ref>https://community.brave.com/t/brave-no-longer-blocking-youtube-ads-as-of-march-27-2024/540032/2</ref> resulting in these actions taking place reflecting the Streisand Effect. 

The YouTube Mobile app allows you to download videos for offline consumption if you have a YouTube Premium subscription.<ref name=":0">https://www.youtube.com/premium </ref> However, the app's DRM prevents you from watching downloaded videos, unless the app has "phoned home" in the last 48 hours.<ref>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6141269</ref> This caveat is not clearly disclosed on the main YouTube Premium page, instead requiring the user to navigate support articles to discover this limitation.

=== Paywalling standard browser features ===
Another premium feature of the YouTube mobile app is the ability to play videos in the background.<ref name=":0" /> Without a premium subscription, neither the app nor a web browser will play YouTube videos in the background. However, the default HTML5 video player supports this with no extra effort needed from the developer.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Google]]
[[Category:Social media companies]]

Digital rights management

2025-01-30T03:57:34Z

Xp:

{{ToneWarning}}
{{Incomplete}}

[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]

[[wikipedia:Digital_rights_management|'''Digital rights management''']] (DRM) broadly refers to any kind of access control technology that is used to deliberately restrict the usage of media content or devices after the sale. It is typically used by a seller to prevent unauthorized distribution or replication of their product. Implementations of DRM can range from very simple (such as a basic disc check) to extremely complex executable binary protection (such as Denuvo).

{{Quote|DRM creates a damaged good; it prevents you from doing what would be possible without it. – Defective by Design<ref>https://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm</ref>}}

==DRM in video content==

Attempting to protect video content is one of the most common uses of DRM. The idea of using copy protection on video content predates the term "DRM", one early example being the "Automatic Gain Control" requirement in VCRs used to enforce the "Macrovision" copy protection scheme.<ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201#k_1_A 17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems, K.1.A.i]</ref><ref>[https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/cs181/projects/1999-00/dmca-2k/macrovision.html Macrovision Demystified], Stanford CS181. </ref> This requirement resulted in VCRs not being able to record commercial VHS tapes{{citation needed}}.

Starting in 1996 DVDs started to feature the "Content Scramble System" (CSS), an encryption based DRM. CSS was successfully circumventented as early as 1999, less than five years after its introduction in 1996, partly due to the limited length of 40-bits the encryption key, used to comply with US government export regulation of the time.<ref>http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/FrankStevenson/mail1.txt</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20000302000206/http://www.dvd-copy.com/news/cryptanalysis_of_contents_scrambling_system.htm "Cryptanalysis of Contents Scrambling System", Frank A. Stevenson, archived from dvd-copy.com]</ref> Following this DVDs as well as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray would implement various other DRM, one of them being the "Advanced Access Content System".<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20070302130221/http://www.aacsla.com/specifications/specs091/AACS_Spec_Common_0.91.pdf
</ref> When the AACS key was similarly extracted the AACS Licensing Administrator began to issue cease-and-desist letters to websites to which the key was posted.<ref>http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=03218</ref> Another form of Blu-Ray DRM, [[Cinavia]], uses a form of audio watermarking that makes certain releases unplayable in devices that are not equipped to recognize it, a notable example being Sony's Playstation 3.<ref>https://www.anandtech.com/show/5693/cinavia-drm-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-blurays-selfdestruction/2</ref>

To attempt to prevent ripping video via a capture card, modern displays, optical disc players, and computers use the High-Definition Content Protection system to encrypt display signals.<ref>https://www.digital-cp.com/about_dcp</ref> For example, [[Netflix stream-quality controversy|Netflix will refuse]] to stream content at the full resolution that the customer has paid for if the user is not using an HDCP-enabled video card and display.

==DRM in audio content==
DRM's strangest inclusion was within audio content, which was not quite commonly put to use due to audio's analog nature compared to video and software, which made it questionable to be capable of blocking the replication of the data. The most notable application of audio DRM was [[MediaMax]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaMax</ref>, which essentially functioned as malware to combat simply playing these audio discs on [[Windows]] and [[MacOS]] operating systems. There was also the less-notable [[Extended Copy Protection]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Copy_Protection</ref> (XCP) DRM, however it did leave [[Sony]] in hot water<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal</ref>, dubbing this form of DRM also as the Sony Rootkit.

==DRM in software==
Most in the DRM discussion often correlate the usage of DRM to the protection of software in some form, from the simple product key, to the infamous [[Denuvo]] DRM. Historically, DRM started off with more simple physical techniques; decoder wheels and LensLok<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenslok</ref>. The efficacy of these systems varied, and many cracking groups simply found ways around this system, especially since 2nd-hand copies of software that used these primitive forms of DRM could easily become lost or damaged, or worse, not even function with some forms of hardware.<ref>https://www.eurogamer.net/banging-the-drm-article?page=2</ref> This has sparked essentially a game of cat and mouse that continues to fester especially for the gaming community to this day.
==Consumer rights issues with DRM==
DRM, by definition, is designed to make content less compatible with devices. This means that there is an elevated chance of a software or hardware product refusing to play content due to buggy or overly-restrictive DRM. For example, with the aforementioned Netflix HDCP requirement, it is not enough for the display where you are going to watch the content to support HDCP - all monitors connected to the system must support it.<ref>https://old.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1avkwtb/netflix_requires_all_monitors_to_be_hdcp_22_how/</ref><ref>https://old.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/mam2l9/how_do_i_get_netflix_working_at_4k_on_my_second/</ref><ref>https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23931</ref> This means that if you have a multi-monitor setup on your PC, you cannot use an older but perfectly working monitor as a secondary screen, without breaking Netflix's DRM.

Such requirements are not always clearly disclosed. If they are disclosed, they are often buried in a ToS, or in the case of Netflix, require you to follow several links around the FAQ pages. Furthermore, some content may surreptitiously install DRM without the knowledge or consent of the user, such as in the Sony Rootkit scandal.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20150317040653/http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2005/10/31/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights-management-gone-too-far.aspx</ref> Such software may contain exploits that can compromise the security of the user's PC.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20061116191907/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2005/11/virus_writers_exploit_sony_ant.html</ref>

DRM in video games has frequently been implemented in an intrusive manner where the performance of the game and load times are noticeably poorer.<ref>https://80.lv/articles/testing-reveals-games-with-denuvo-launch-up-to-four-times-slower/</ref> This behavior has been more due to negligent usage of the DRM rather than anything that can be directly attributed to malicious behavior.

DRM failures can also come as a surprise. For example, with a YouTube Premium subscription, you can "Download videos to watch offline," but such videos are only available for 48 hours if you do not have an internet connection.<ref>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6141269</ref> This is confusing and problematic, as a user might want to download videos if they will know that they will not have an internet connection for a while. They may even take the extra step of turning off their internet connection to ensure that the videos still play offline. Once the 48 hours have expired, however, the user is surprised to find that the videos that they thought they had downloaded for offline consumption actually require an internet connection to work.

===Ineffectiveness of audio and video DRM===
Non-interactive content such as audio and video is nearly impossible to protect from copying once it is distributed to the consumer. Many HDMI splitters<ref>https://old.reddit.com/r/PS3/comments/19dohrh/bypassing_hdcp_in_2024/lbtqiky/</ref> and capture cards<ref>https://old.reddit.com/r/PS3/comments/19dohrh/bypassing_hdcp_in_2024/kj7cu60/
</ref> are capable of decrypting HDCP and copying the video stream. As long as at least one bypass exists at the HDCP level, all streaming content can be trivially ripped.

Audio DRM is trivial to bypass, as the audio must be decrypted into a plain analog signal in order to drive physical speakers or headphones.

===DRM degradation===
The development of some forms of DRM, such as Games For Windows Live<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_for_Windows_%E2%80%93_Live</ref>, are reliant on special processes within some operating systems that end up becoming unsupported or depreciated as time goes on. Legacy [[SecuROM]]-protected titles (released roughly between 1998 and 2005) are notoriously known for not running on operating systems newer than Windows XP<ref>https://www.lucadamico.dev/papers/drms/securom/ArabianNights.pdf</ref><ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20220226230919/http://www.reversing.be/article.php?story=20061015153108847</ref>. Customers must spend an extensive amount of time circumventing the DRM (or using more illicit methods) just to play content they legitimately purchased.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjkqI7dBDVg</ref>

This DRM degradation has the worst effects for those who own physical licenses to products that they own, since unlike a digital installation, if a physical copy of a game's DRM stops being supported by modern hardware, a developer cannot simply distribute a patch that directly modifies the code on a disc, and online patches cannot last forever.

===Always-online DRM===
Some DRM requires a constant internet connection. While this may make sense in something that inherently requires an internet connection such as a streaming service or multiplayer-only video game, this has also been employed in games with single-player content, rendering the customer unable to use their purchase if they do not have an active internet connection.<ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/17/diablo-iii-fans-should-stay-angry-about-always-online-drm/</ref> Conversely, if operations are shut down for these services, users even with legitimate pieces of software they may own, and have access to the internet, simply cannot run their games without first needing to hack their games.<ref>https://keowu.re/posts/Rewriting-completely-the-GameSpy-support-from-2000-to-2004-using-Reverse-Engineering-on-EA-and-Bungie-Games/</ref><ref>https://www.slashgear.com/gamespy-shuts-down-may-31-will-your-game-be-affected-04323788/</ref> [[Ubisoft]] has historically been known for server shutdowns and transfers cutting off access to games for many players.<ref>http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/121/1218211p1.html

[https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/121/1218211p1.html Archive]</ref>

==DRM present elsewhere==

===Printer Ink===
''See also: [[HP Dynamic Security]]''

Companies such as [[HP]] only allow printers to only use ink sold by the same brand. There are a number of DRM systems employed by different companies to this end, an example of which is HP Dynamic Security, which has caught controversy during recent years.

==References==
<references />

Games as a service

2025-01-29T05:41:57Z

Xp: Add "Issues" section, add part about "The Crew"

'''[[wikipedia:Games_as_a_service|Games as a service]]''' (also known as live-service games) is a business model that is designed to continuously monetize games after they are initially sold (or given out for free), typically with new updates, DLC, and microtransactions. A common practice with this business model is having the ability to pre-emptively purchase this content with the promise that it will be released at a certain time, and will feature all of the content that was promised in the products listing. Games as a service also typically have a premium currency that you purchase with real-world currency to purchase in-game items.

== Issues ==
While GaaS provides an incentive for a developer to continue to produce content for their game, once the developer or publisher decides to stop supporting the game, it often becomes completely unplayable.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70Xc9CStoE "The largest campaign ever to stop publishers destroying games"] Accursed Farms. April 2, 2024. Retrieved January 24, 2025.</ref> There is very little legal recourse for the user to recoup the cost of purchasing the game or any content purchased within. The [[End-user license agreement]] typically absolves the publisher of any such duty, as it states that you are purchasing a license rather than actually owning the software.<ref>[https://www.kelleherbros.com/blog/2024/3/27/digital-ownership-2-the-eula-era Precarious Digital Ownership: The EULA Era] Kelleher Bros. March 27, 2024. Retrieved January 28, 2025.</ref>

== Examples ==

=== Ubisoft ===
{{Main|Ubisoft}}
XDefiant, developed by Ubisoft, is an example of a game as a service. On December 3rd, 2024, the game announced the shutdown of its servers on June 3rd, 2025.<ref name=":0">https://archive.is/ueESQ</ref> 49 days before the shutdown announcement, executive producer of XDefiant, Mark Rubin<ref>https://archive.is/nEche</ref> posted online that the game had no plans of shutting down after season 4, while the game was still in season 2, and they had recently discussed their plans internally for the second year of content<ref>https://archive.is/XmekP</ref>. The shutdown post announced that the last 30 days of purchases would be fully refunded.<ref name=":0" />

The shutdown of ''The Crew'' is one of the central issues of the [[Stop Killing Games]] campaign. Despite the game containing some code for an offline mode from the start, it was not made accessible to the user due to the game's [[DRM]].<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qKNY64-QSc The Crew Offline Mode - Setting The Record Straight] whammy4. December 15, 2023. Retrieved January 28, 2025. </ref> Thus, the game was left in a completely unplayable state.

==References==
{{Reflist}}
[[Category:Services]]

Digital rights management

2025-01-20T18:38:52Z

Xp: Expand on DRM

[[Category:Anti Consumer Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]

Digital Rights Management (DRM) broadly refers to any kind of access control technology that is used to deliberately restrict the usage of media content or devices after the sale. It is typically used by a seller to prevent unauthorized distribution or replication of their product. Implementations of DRM can range from very simple (such as a basic disc check) to extremely complex executable binary protection (such as Denuvo).

{{Quote|DRM creates a damaged good; it prevents you from doing what would be possible without it. – Defective by Design<ref>https://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm</ref>}}

== DRM in Video Content ==
Attempting to protect video content is one of the most common uses of DRM. The idea of using copy protection on video content predates the term "DRM", such as the "Automatic Gain Control" requirement in VCRs, to enforce the "Macrovision" copy protection scheme.<ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201#k_1_A 17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems, K.1.A.i]</ref><ref>[https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/cs181/projects/1999-00/dmca-2k/macrovision.html Macrovision Demystified], Stanford CS181. </ref> This resulted in VCRs not being able to record commercial VHS tapes and DVDs.

DVDs also feature the "Content Scramble System," which was cracked.<ref>http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/FrankStevenson/mail1.txt</ref> Later, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray would implement the Advanced Access Content System.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20070302130221/http://www.aacsla.com/specifications/specs091/AACS_Spec_Common_0.91.pdf

</ref> The AACS key was similarly cracked, and the AACS Licensing Administrator began to issue cease-and-desist letters to websites to which the key was posted.<ref>http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=03218</ref>

To attempt to prevent ripping video via a capture card, modern displays, optical disc players, and computers use the High-Definition Content Protection system to encrypt display signals.<ref>https://www.digital-cp.com/about_dcp</ref> For example, [[Netflix 4K Stream Quality Controversy|Netflix will refuse]] to stream content at the full resolution that the customer has paid for if the user is not using an HDCP-enabled video card and display.

== Issues with DRM ==
DRM, by definition, is designed to make content less compatible with devices. This means that there is an elevated chance of a software or hardware product refusing to play content due to buggy or overly-restrictive DRM. For example, with the aforementioned Netflix HDCP requirement, it is not enough for the display where you are going to watch the content to support HDCP - all monitors connected to the system must support it.<ref>https://old.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1avkwtb/netflix_requires_all_monitors_to_be_hdcp_22_how/</ref><ref>https://old.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/mam2l9/how_do_i_get_netflix_working_at_4k_on_my_second/</ref><ref>https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23931</ref> This means that if you have a multi-monitor setup on your PC, you cannot use an older but perfectly working monitor as a secondary screen, without breaking Netflix's DRM.

Such requirements are not always clearly disclosed. If they are disclosed, they are often buried in a ToS, or in the case of Netflix, require you to follow several links around the FAQ pages. Furthermore, some content may surreptitiously install DRM without the knowledge or consent of the user, such as in the Sony Rootkit scandal.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20150317040653/http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2005/10/31/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights-management-gone-too-far.aspx</ref> Such software may contain exploits that can compromise the security of the user's PC.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20061116191907/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2005/11/virus_writers_exploit_sony_ant.html</ref>

DRM in video games is often implemented in such an intrusive manner that the game takes longer to load, and reduces framerate in the game.<ref>https://80.lv/articles/testing-reveals-games-with-denuvo-launch-up-to-four-times-slower/</ref>

DRM failures can also come as a surprise. For example, with a YouTube Premium subscription, you can "Download videos to watch offline," but such videos are only available for 48 hours if you do not have an internet connection.<ref>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6141269</ref> This is confusing and problematic, as a user might want to download videos if they will know that they will not have an internet connection for a while. They may even take the extra step of turning off their internet connection to ensure that the videos still play offline. Once the 48 hours have expired, however, the user is surprised to find that the videos that they thought they had downloaded for offline consumption actually require an internet connection to work.

=== Ineffectiveness of Audio and Video DRM ===
Non-interactive content such as audio and video is nearly impossible to protect from copying. Many HDMI splitters<ref>https://old.reddit.com/r/PS3/comments/19dohrh/bypassing_hdcp_in_2024/lbtqiky/</ref> and capture cards<ref>https://old.reddit.com/r/PS3/comments/19dohrh/bypassing_hdcp_in_2024/kj7cu60/

</ref> are capable of decrypting HDCP and copying the video stream. As long as at least one bypass exists at the HDCP level, all streaming content can be trivially ripped.

Audio DRM is even more trivial to bypass, as the audio must be decrypted into a plain analog signal at some point in order to drive the physical speakers or headphones.

=== Always-Online DRM ===
Some DRM requires a constant internet connection. While this may make sense in something that inherently requires an internet connection such as a streaming service or multiplayer-only video game, this has also been employed in games with single-player content, rendering the customer unable to use their purchase if they do not have an active internet connection.<ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/17/diablo-iii-fans-should-stay-angry-about-always-online-drm/</ref>

== References ==

Forced arbitration

2025-01-19T05:49:09Z

Xp: Add "Conflict of Interest" section

Forced Arbitration is a practice in which businesses can require their customers to resolve disputes through arbitration, instead of a traditional court system. Per Wikipedia: "Arbitration is a formal method of dispute resolution involving a third party neutral who makes a binding decision."<ref name=":1">[[wikipedia:Arbitration#References|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration]]</ref>

== How it Works ==
Businesses will typically add an arbitration clause to their Terms of Service or Terms of Use. This clause generally outlines how disputes are handled between the consumer and the business. A good example of a typical arbitration clause can be found in Instagram's Terms of Use, which, as of January 6th, 2025, is under Section 7.4 - How We Will Handle Disputes:<ref name=":0">https://web.archive.org/web/20250106102429/https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870/ (January 6th, 2025) Retrieved January 13th, 2025</ref><blockquote>"Except as provided below, you and we agree that any cause of action, legal claim, or dispute between you and us arising out of or related to these Terms or Instagram ("claim(s)") must be resolved by arbitration on an individual basis. Class actions and class arbitrations are not permitted; you and we may bring a claim only on your own behalf and cannot seek relief that would affect other Instagram users."</blockquote>Currently, in the United States, arbitration clauses such as this one are legal under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).<ref name=":2">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2019-title9/html/USCODE-2019-title9.htm</ref> However, efforts have been made to prohibit forced arbitration, most notably the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act of 2023.<ref>https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1376</ref>

== Why It's a Problem ==

=== Revocation of Rights ===
The practice of Forced Arbitration is one that is designed to revoke the rights of the consumer. In this case, the consumer's right to sue or participate in a class action against a business. Instead, the consumer must work with an arbiter of the businesses' choosing behind closed doors to resolve claims, which is widely believed to result in biased outcomes.

=== Inconvenient Opt-out Procedure ===
Arbitration is often made inconvenient for users to opt-out of. Instead of giving users the option to do so at sign-up digitally, most businesses will require users to send a handwritten letter within 30 days of their sign-up to opt-out of arbitration. This type of opt-out clause can also be seen in Instagram's Terms of Use:<ref name=":0" /><blockquote>"You can opt out of this provision within 30 days of the date that you agreed to these Terms. To opt out, you must send your name, residence address, username, email address or phone number you use for your Instagram account, and a clear statement that you want to opt out of this arbitration agreement, and you must send them here:" [Address redacted]</blockquote>

This practice is similar to how gyms will often require members to travel to their location or send snail mail to cancel a membership, while an online system could easily be put in its place.

=== Conflict of Interest ===
Companies track performance of arbitrators over time, and as such, are able to pick arbitrators that lean towards the industry rather than the consumer.<ref name=":1" /> While both the consumer and company theoretically have some control over the selection of the arbitrator, the company generally has an information advantage in the selection process. Furthermore, individual arbitrators have a long-term financial incentive to bias their rulings in favor of corporations, as the corporation is much more likely to become a "repeat customer" than the consumer. In extreme cases, entire arbitration firms may have a material conflict of interest.<ref name=":2" />

== Examples ==
Some examples of arbitration clauses in terms and conditions include:

Instagram Terms of Use - Section 7.4 - How We Will Handle Disputes<ref name=":0" />

Sony PlayStation Network Terms of Service - Section 14 - Binding Individual Arbitration<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20241216114722/https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psn-terms-of-service/ (December 16th, 2024) Retrieved January 13th, 2025</ref>

Ticketmaster Terms of Use - Section 17 - Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250105150022/https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/10468830739345-Terms-of-Use#section17 https://web.archive.org/web/20250105150022/https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/10468830739345-Terms-of-Use] (January 5th, 2025) Retrieved January 13th, 2025</ref>

In Section 27.1 of Zoom's Terms of Service, says "You and Zoom agree that any dispute or claim between you and Zoom arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the Services (a “Dispute”), including any related software, hardware, integrations, advertising or marketing communications, your account, or any aspects of your relationship or transactions with Zoom, will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court." <ref>https://www.zoom.com/en/trust/terms/</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Common terms]]

PayPal Honey

2025-01-18T23:23:31Z

Xp:

{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = PayPal Honey
| Release Year = 2012
| Product Type = Browser Extension
| In Production = Yes
| Official Website = https://www.joinhoney.com
| Logo = PayPal_Honey.svg|thumb|The logo for PayPal Honey, formerly "Honey"
}}
Honey (now PayPal Honey) is a browser extension and platform owned by [[PayPal|PayPal Holdings, Inc.]] since its acquisition for $4 billion in 2020.<ref>Perez, Sarah (November 20, 2019). [https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/20/paypal-to-acquire-shopping-and-rewards-platform-honey-for-4-billion/ "PayPal to acquire shopping and rewards platform Honey for $4B"]. ''TechCrunch''. Retrieved January 15, 2025.</ref> The service, launched in 2012, is primarily known for its browser extension that automatically searches for and applies discount codes during online shopping checkout processes. The company is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.<ref>Metcalf, Tom; Verhage, Julie (January 28, 2020). [https://web.archive.org/web/20201209044201/https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/coupon-duo-now-worth-1-5-billion-after-honey-s-sale-to-paypal "Coupon Duo Now Worth $1.5 Billion After Honey's Sale to PayPal"]. ''BloombergQuint''. Archived from the original on December 9, 2020. Retrieved January 15, 2025.</ref>

== Consumer Protection Profile ==

==== Privacy ====
'''Status:''' Significant Concerns<ref name="cpp">[https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/Consumer_Protection_Profile "Consumer Protection Profile"] ''Consumer Protection Database''. 2025.</ref>
* Collects extensive personal identifiers including name, email, IP address, and device IDs<ref name="privacy-policy">[https://www.joinhoney.com/privacy "PayPal Honey Privacy Statement"]. ''PayPal Honey''. October 28, 2024. Retrieved January 15, 2025.</ref>
* Tracks detailed shopping behavior, including purchases, returns, and browsing patterns<ref name="privacy-policy"/>
* Shares data with PayPal companies and merchant partners<ref name="privacy-policy"/>
* Creates inference profiles based on shopping patterns and preferences<ref name="privacy-policy"/>
* Retains data for up to 10 years after account closure<ref name="privacy-policy"/>

==== Transparency ====
'''Status:''' Significant Concerns<ref name="cpp"/>
* Undisclosed manipulation of affiliate marketing links<ref name="megalag-video">MegaLag (December 21, 2024). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc4yL3YTwWk "Exposing the Honey Influencer Scam"]. ''YouTube''. Retrieved January 15, 2025.</ref><ref name="techopedia-article">Fernandez, Ray (December 24, 2024). [https://www.techopedia.com/paypal-honey-accused-of-fraud "Is PayPal's Honey Misleading Users? We Investigate"]. ''Techopedia''. Retrieved January 15, 2025.</ref>
* Hidden redirect mechanisms affecting commissions<ref name="megalag-video"/><ref name="techopedia-article"/>
* Selective display of coupon codes based on undisclosed partner agreements<ref name="megalag-video"/><ref name="techopedia-article"/>
* Subject to multiple ongoing class action lawsuits regarding deceptive practices<ref name="wendover-v-paypal">[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69503243/9/wendover-productions-llc-v-paypal-inc/ "Wendover Productions, LLC v. PayPal Inc, 5:24-cv-09470, (N.D. Cal.)"]. ''courtlistener.com''. Free Law Project. Retrieved January 15, 2025.</ref><ref name="gamersnexus-v-paypal-holdings">[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69517397/gamersnexus-llc-v-paypal-holdings-inc/ "GamersNexus, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., 5:25-cv-00114, (N.D. Cal.)"]. ''courtlistener.com''. Free Law Project. Retrieved January 15, 2025.</ref>

==== Freedom ====
'''Status:''' Significant Concerns<ref name="cpp"/>
* Consumer choice restricted by intentionally hidden discounts and deals<ref name="megalag-video"/><ref name="techopedia-article"/>
* Users unable to make informed decisions due to selective deal display<ref name="megalag-video"/><ref name="techopedia-article"/>
* No user control over partner-privileged discount system<ref name="megalag-video"/><ref name="techopedia-article"/>
* Mandatory acceptance of arbitration clause with class action waiver<ref name="terms-of-use">[https://www.joinhoney.com/terms "Terms of Use"]. ''PayPal Honey''. January 16, 2024. Retrieved January 15, 2025.</ref>
* Service can be terminated at PayPal's discretion without notice<ref name="terms-of-use"/>
* Users forced to accept terms modifications without direct notification<ref name="terms-of-use"/>

== Consumer Protection Incidents ==

==== Content Creator Lawsuits (Dec. 2024) ====

In December 2024, a class action lawsuit was filed against [[PayPal, Inc.]] by [[Wendover Productions, LLC]] alleging that Honey manipulated affiliate marketing links without proper disclosure or compensation. The suits claim Honey replaced legitimate affiliate links with their own, even when no coupons were found for users. This practice allegedly impacted both content creators and consumers who intended to support specific affiliates.<ref name="wendover-v-paypal"/>

[[Gamers Nexus, LLC]] later filed a class action suit against [[PayPal Holdings, Inc.]] in January 2025 highlighting the same issues.<ref name="gamersnexus-v-paypal-holdings"/>

==== Affiliate Tampering Controversy (Dec. 2024) ====
In December 2024, investigations revealed that Honey was engaging in systematic manipulation of affiliate marketing links. The investigations found that when users clicked on content creators' affiliate links and subsequently used Honey during checkout, the extension would:

* Delete the original affiliate's tracking cookie
* Replace it with Honey's own affiliate cookie via a hidden redirect tab
* Claim the commission that was intended for the original content creator
This practice is an example of "cookie stuffing," where a dishonest affiliate injects their own affiliate cookie without the user's knowledge.<ref>[https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/laguna-niguel-man-receives-fifteen-month-prison-term-defrauding-ebay Laguna Niguel Man Receives Fifteen-Month Prison Term For Defrauding eBay] ''U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of California''. August 4, 2014. Retrieved January 18, 2025.</ref>

Additionally, contrary to marketing claims about finding "the best deals," Honey was found to have agreements with partner stores allowing them to control which coupon codes appeared through the extension. This meant stores could hide better discounts while only showing Honey users lower-value coupons. The practice directly contradicted years of marketing claims that promised users they would "always get the best deal possible."<ref name="megalag-video"/>

Simon Wijckmans, CEO of c/side, noted that "When users purchased via an affiliate link with Honey installed, commissions intended for creators were redirected to Honey. Additionally, Honey misrepresented deals as the best discounts while partnering with companies to hide better offers."<ref name="techopedia-article"/>

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:PayPal]][[Category:Products]]

Click-to-cancel

2025-01-18T19:12:58Z

Xp: Fix heading levels

The "Click to Cancel" rule is an FTC rule which requires that subscription services make it as easy to cancel the service as it was to sign up<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/10/federal-trade-commission-announces-final-click-cancel-rule-making-it-easier-consumers-end-recurring</ref>. This is designed to combat an anti-consumer practice, where a subscription service makes it very easy to sign up for a service, but requires the customer to jump through hoops to cancel the subscription. The law has been finalized, but does not come into effect until May 14, 2025<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-6</ref>.

The rule prohibits the following<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/NegOptions-1page-Oct2024-v2.pdf</ref><ref name=":0">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-11-15/pdf/2024-25534.pdf</ref>:

* to misrepresent any material fact made while marketing using a negative option feature
* to fail to clearly and conspicuously disclose material terms prior to obtaining a consumer’s billing information in connection with a negative option feature
* to fail to obtain a consumer’s express informed consent to the negative option feature before charging the consumer
* to fail to provide a simple mechanism to cancel the negative option feature and immediately halt charges

A "negative option feature" is defined by the FTC as 'a provision in an offer or agreement to sell or provide any goods or services ‘‘under which the customer’s silence or failure to take an affirmative action to reject goods or services or to cancel the agreement is interpreted by the seller as acceptance of the offer.’’ '<ref name=":0" /> In other words, a service where once a subscription is initiated, the customer will be billed unless they cancel the subscription.

The "Click to Cancel" rule is not limited to online services, as the name might suggest. It includes, but is not limited to "Interactive Electronic Media, telephone, print, and in-person transactions"<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/11/15/2024-25534/negative-option-rule#sectno-citation-425.1</ref>. The cancellation mechanism must be "at least as simple as consent"<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-1164</ref>. The customer may not be required to interact with a representative, whether a real human or a chat bot, if the customer was not required to do so when they signed up for the service<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-1166</ref>. For services which were signed up for in-person, the seller must allow cancellation online or over the phone<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-1168</ref>.

== Examples of Abuse ==

=== Gym Memberships ===
Gym memberships are a notorious example of being significantly more difficult to cancel than they were to sign up for. While some states, such as California<ref>https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2863&showamends=false</ref> already had laws analogous to CtC, gym locations outside of those locations have continued to make it easy to sign up, yet difficult to cancel.

==== Planet Fitness ====
Prior to state-level laws, their FAQ stated that "You can fill out a cancellation form at the front desk of your home club, or send a letter (preferably via certified mail) to your club requesting cancellation. Memberships can’t, unfortunately, be cancelled by email or phone"<ref>https://www.planetfitness.com/about-planet-fitness/customer-service/membership-faqs</ref> despite allowing online signups. As of Jan 18, 2025, their terms state "our cancellation process may vary from club to club", and that "Some members may also be eligible to cancel their membership online based on their membership type and the location of their home club"<ref>https://archive.ph/XSG0Q</ref>.

==== LA Fitness ====
In a similar vein, LA Fitness's current policy states that "via your online account or as may otherwise be provided in your agreement (for example, depending on your state of enrollment, you may be able to cancel by email)", but previously stated that they "recommend you mail the notice by certified mail and keep a record for your files. Or, you can deliver the notice directly to the Operations Manager at the nearest LA Fitness facility between 9AM and 5PM on Monday through Friday" <ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20210616083544/https://lafitness.com/Pages/MembershipQuestions.aspx#</ref>.

=== Free Trial/Free-to-Pay ===
"Free-to-Pay" is a technical term for a free trial<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1598063/negative_option_policy_statement-10-22-2021-tobureau.pdf</ref>. In many cases, rather than providing a free trial with no strings attached, and then billing the customer if they decide to sign up, the vendor collects payment information as a prerequisite of the free trial, and automatically bills the customer if they fail to affirmatively cancel the trial.

While it does not outright prohibit this practice, the click-to-cancel rule partially alleviates these issues by requiring clear disclosures and consent. According to state AGs, 'advertisements for free-to-pay conversion offers often lure consumers by promising a “free” benefit while failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose future payment obligations'<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-07035/p-83</ref>. The FTC also states that<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-07035/p-87</ref>:<blockquote>Other studies reveal similar trends. TINA noted the FBI's internet Crime Complaint Center recorded a rise in complaints about free trial offers, growing from 1,738 in 2015 to 2,486 in 2017, with losses totaling more than $15 million. Similarly, a 2019 Bankrate.com survey cited by NCL found that 59% of consumers have signed up for “free trials” that automatically converted into a recurring payment obligation “against their will.” In NCL's view, these data point to “a troubling, and costly problem for American consumers.” </blockquote>

=== Adobe ===
[[Adobe]] allegedly "trapped customers into year-long subscriptions through hidden early termination fees and numerous cancellation hurdles", according to the FTC<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/06/ftc-takes-action-against-adobe-executives-hiding-fees-preventing-consumers-easily-cancelling</ref>. Some of their plans are confusing "annual paid monthly" plans, in which the customer receives a discount as if they had signed up for an annual subscription, but are billed monthly. The FTC alleges that they did not prominently disclose the early termination fee associated with these plans, which is half of the remaining monthly payments if the consumer cancels before the annual subscription runs its course. The complaint also alleges that the cancellation process is difficult and costly:<blockquote>In addition to failing to disclose the ETF to consumers when they subscribe, the complaint also alleges that Adobe uses the ETF to ambush consumers to deter them from cancelling their subscriptions. The complaint also alleges that Adobe’s cancellation processes are designed to make cancellation difficult for consumers. When consumers have attempted to cancel their subscription on the company’s website, they have been forced to navigate numerous pages in order to cancel.When consumers reach out to Adobe’s customer service to cancel, they encounter resistance and delay from Adobe representatives. Consumers also experience other obstacles, such as dropped calls and chats, and multiple transfers. Some consumers who thought they had successfully cancelled their subscription reported that the company continued to charge them until discovering the charges on their credit card statements.</blockquote>

==== Brigit ====
Brigit is a cash advance app. The FTC complaint alleges that the company "used manipulative design tricks to create a confusing and misleading cancellation process that made it difficult for consumers to cancel their subscriptions<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/11/ftc-sends-more-17-million-consumers-harmed-brigits-deceptive-claims-junk-fees-confusing-cancellation</ref>."

== References ==
<references />

Click-to-cancel

2025-01-18T18:54:43Z

Xp: Fix unclickable reference

The "Click to Cancel" rule is an FTC rule which requires that subscription services make it as easy to cancel the service as it was to sign up<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/10/federal-trade-commission-announces-final-click-cancel-rule-making-it-easier-consumers-end-recurring</ref>. This is designed to combat an anti-consumer practice, where a subscription service makes it very easy to sign up for a service, but requires the customer to jump through hoops to cancel the subscription. The law has been finalized, but does not come into effect until May 14, 2025<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-6</ref>.

The rule prohibits the following<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/NegOptions-1page-Oct2024-v2.pdf</ref><ref name=":0">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-11-15/pdf/2024-25534.pdf</ref>:

* to misrepresent any material fact made while marketing using a negative option feature
* to fail to clearly and conspicuously disclose material terms prior to obtaining a consumer’s billing information in connection with a negative option feature
* to fail to obtain a consumer’s express informed consent to the negative option feature before charging the consumer
* to fail to provide a simple mechanism to cancel the negative option feature and immediately halt charges

A "negative option feature" is defined by the FTC as 'a provision in an offer or agreement to sell or provide any goods or services ‘‘under which the customer’s silence or failure to take an affirmative action to reject goods or services or to cancel the agreement is interpreted by the seller as acceptance of the offer.’’ '<ref name=":0" /> In other words, a service where once a subscription is initiated, the customer will be billed unless they cancel the subscription.

The "Click to Cancel" rule is not limited to online services, as they name might suggest. It includes, but is not limited to "Interactive Electronic Media, telephone, print, and in-person transactions"<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/11/15/2024-25534/negative-option-rule#sectno-citation-425.1</ref>. The cancellation mechanism must be "at least as simple as consent"<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-1164</ref>. The customer may not be required to interact with a representative, whether a real human nor a chat bot, if the customer was not required to do so when they signed up for the service<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-1166</ref>. For services which were signed up for in-person, the seller must allow cancellation online or over the phone<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-1168</ref>.

=== Examples of Abuse ===

==== Gym Memberships ====
Gym memberships are a notorious example of being significantly more difficult to cancel than they were to sign up for. While some states, such as California<ref>https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2863&showamends=false</ref> already had laws analogous to CtC, gym locations outside of those locations have continued to make it easy to sign up, yet difficult to cancel.

===== Planet Fitness =====
Prior to state-level laws, their FAQ stated that "You can fill out a cancellation form at the front desk of your home club, or send a letter (preferably via certified mail) to your club requesting cancellation. Memberships can’t, unfortunately, be cancelled by email or phone"<ref>https://www.planetfitness.com/about-planet-fitness/customer-service/membership-faqs</ref> despite allowing online signups. As of Jan 18, 2025, their terms state "our cancellation process may vary from club to club", and that "Some members may also be eligible to cancel their membership online based on their membership type and the location of their home club"<ref>https://archive.ph/XSG0Q</ref>.

===== LA Fitness =====
In a similar vein, LA Fitness's current policy states that "via your online account or as may otherwise be provided in your agreement (for example, depending on your state of enrollment, you may be able to cancel by email)", but previously stated that they "recommend you mail the notice by certified mail and keep a record for your files. Or, you can deliver the notice directly to the Operations Manager at the nearest LA Fitness facility between 9AM and 5PM on Monday through Friday" <ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20210616083544/https://lafitness.com/Pages/MembershipQuestions.aspx#</ref>.

==== Free Trial/Free-to-Pay ====
"Free-to-Pay" is a technical term for a free trial<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1598063/negative_option_policy_statement-10-22-2021-tobureau.pdf</ref>. In many cases, rather than providing a free trial with no strings attached, and then billing the customer if they decide to sign up, the vendor collects payment information as a prerequisite of the free trial, and automatically bills the customer if they fail to affirmatively cancel the trial.

While it does not outright prohibit this practice, the click-to-cancel rule partially alleviates these issues by requiring clear disclosures and consent. According to state AGs, 'advertisements for free-to-pay conversion offers often lure consumers by promising a “free” benefit while failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose future payment obligations'<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-07035/p-83</ref>. The FTC also states that<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-07035/p-87</ref>:<blockquote>Other studies reveal similar trends. TINA noted the FBI's internet Crime Complaint Center recorded a rise in complaints about free trial offers, growing from 1,738 in 2015 to 2,486 in 2017, with losses totaling more than $15 million. Similarly, a 2019 Bankrate.com survey cited by NCL found that 59% of consumers have signed up for “free trials” that automatically converted into a recurring payment obligation “against their will.” In NCL's view, these data point to “a troubling, and costly problem for American consumers.” </blockquote>

==== Adobe ====
[[Adobe]] allegedly "trapped customers into year-long subscriptions through hidden early termination fees and numerous cancellation hurdles", according to the FTC<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/06/ftc-takes-action-against-adobe-executives-hiding-fees-preventing-consumers-easily-cancelling</ref>. Some of their plans are confusing "annual paid monthly" plans, in which the customer receives a discount as if they had signed up for an annual subscription, but are billed monthly. The FTC alleges that they did not prominently disclose the early termination fee associated with these plans, which is half of the remaining monthly payments if the consumer cancels before the annual subscription runs its course. The complaint also alleges that the cancellation process is difficult and costly:<blockquote>In addition to failing to disclose the ETF to consumers when they subscribe, the complaint also alleges that Adobe uses the ETF to ambush consumers to deter them from cancelling their subscriptions. The complaint also alleges that Adobe’s cancellation processes are designed to make cancellation difficult for consumers. When consumers have attempted to cancel their subscription on the company’s website, they have been forced to navigate numerous pages in order to cancel.When consumers reach out to Adobe’s customer service to cancel, they encounter resistance and delay from Adobe representatives. Consumers also experience other obstacles, such as dropped calls and chats, and multiple transfers. Some consumers who thought they had successfully cancelled their subscription reported that the company continued to charge them until discovering the charges on their credit card statements.</blockquote>

===== Brigit =====
Brigit is a cash advance app. The FTC complaint alleges that the company "used manipulative design tricks to create a confusing and misleading cancellation process that made it difficult for consumers to cancel their subscriptions<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/11/ftc-sends-more-17-million-consumers-harmed-brigits-deceptive-claims-junk-fees-confusing-cancellation</ref>."

<references />

Click-to-cancel

2025-01-18T18:52:07Z

Xp: Initial Article

The "Click to Cancel" rule is an FTC rule which requires that subscription services make it as easy to cancel the service as it was to sign up<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/10/federal-trade-commission-announces-final-click-cancel-rule-making-it-easier-consumers-end-recurring</ref>. This is designed to combat an anti-consumer practice, where a subscription service makes it very easy to sign up for a service, but requires the customer to jump through hoops to cancel the subscription. The law has been finalized, but does not come into effect until May 14, 2025<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-6</ref>.

The rule prohibits the following<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/NegOptions-1page-Oct2024-v2.pdf</ref><ref name=":0">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-11-15/pdf/2024-25534.pdf</ref>:

* to misrepresent any material fact made while marketing using a negative option feature
* to fail to clearly and conspicuously disclose material terms prior to obtaining a consumer’s billing information in connection with a negative option feature
* to fail to obtain a consumer’s express informed consent to the negative option feature before charging the consumer
* to fail to provide a simple mechanism to cancel the negative option feature and immediately halt charges

A "negative option feature" is defined by the FTC as 'a provision in an offer or agreement to sell or provide any goods or services ‘‘under which the customer’s silence or failure to take an affirmative action to reject goods or services or to cancel the agreement is interpreted by the seller as acceptance of the offer.’’ '<ref name=":0" /> In other words, a service where once a subscription is initiated, the customer will be billed unless they cancel the subscription.

The "Click to Cancel" rule is not limited to online services, as they name might suggest. It includes, but is not limited to "Interactive Electronic Media, telephone, print, and in-person transactions"<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/11/15/2024-25534/negative-option-rule#sectno-citation-425.1</ref>. The cancellation mechanism must be "at least as simple as consent"<ref><nowiki>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-1164</nowiki></ref>. The customer may not be required to interact with a representative, whether a real human nor a chat bot, if the customer was not required to do so when they signed up for the service<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-1166</ref>. For services which were signed up for in-person, the seller must allow cancellation online or over the phone<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-1168</ref>.

=== Examples of Abuse ===

==== Gym Memberships ====
Gym memberships are a notorious example of being significantly more difficult to cancel than they were to sign up for. While some states, such as California<ref>https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2863&showamends=false</ref> already had laws analogous to CtC, gym locations outside of those locations have continued to make it easy to sign up, yet difficult to cancel.

===== Planet Fitness =====
Prior to state-level laws, their FAQ stated that "You can fill out a cancellation form at the front desk of your home club, or send a letter (preferably via certified mail) to your club requesting cancellation. Memberships can’t, unfortunately, be cancelled by email or phone"<ref>https://www.planetfitness.com/about-planet-fitness/customer-service/membership-faqs</ref> despite allowing online signups. As of Jan 18, 2025, their terms state "our cancellation process may vary from club to club", and that "Some members may also be eligible to cancel their membership online based on their membership type and the location of their home club"<ref>https://archive.ph/XSG0Q</ref>.

===== LA Fitness =====
In a similar vein, LA Fitness's current policy states that "via your online account or as may otherwise be provided in your agreement (for example, depending on your state of enrollment, you may be able to cancel by email)", but previously stated that they "recommend you mail the notice by certified mail and keep a record for your files. Or, you can deliver the notice directly to the Operations Manager at the nearest LA Fitness facility between 9AM and 5PM on Monday through Friday" <ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20210616083544/https://lafitness.com/Pages/MembershipQuestions.aspx#</ref>.

==== Free Trial/Free-to-Pay ====
"Free-to-Pay" is a technical term for a free trial<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1598063/negative_option_policy_statement-10-22-2021-tobureau.pdf</ref>. In many cases, rather than providing a free trial with no strings attached, and then billing the customer if they decide to sign up, the vendor collects payment information as a prerequisite of the free trial, and automatically bills the customer if they fail to affirmatively cancel the trial.

While it does not outright prohibit this practice, the click-to-cancel rule partially alleviates these issues by requiring clear disclosures and consent. According to state AGs, 'advertisements for free-to-pay conversion offers often lure consumers by promising a “free” benefit while failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose future payment obligations'<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-07035/p-83</ref>. The FTC also states that<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-07035/p-87</ref>:<blockquote>Other studies reveal similar trends. TINA noted the FBI's internet Crime Complaint Center recorded a rise in complaints about free trial offers, growing from 1,738 in 2015 to 2,486 in 2017, with losses totaling more than $15 million. Similarly, a 2019 Bankrate.com survey cited by NCL found that 59% of consumers have signed up for “free trials” that automatically converted into a recurring payment obligation “against their will.” In NCL's view, these data point to “a troubling, and costly problem for American consumers.” </blockquote>

==== Adobe ====
[[Adobe]] allegedly "trapped customers into year-long subscriptions through hidden early termination fees and numerous cancellation hurdles", according to the FTC<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/06/ftc-takes-action-against-adobe-executives-hiding-fees-preventing-consumers-easily-cancelling</ref>. Some of their plans are confusing "annual paid monthly" plans, in which the customer receives a discount as if they had signed up for an annual subscription, but are billed monthly. The FTC alleges that they did not prominently disclose the early termination fee associated with these plans, which is half of the remaining monthly payments if the consumer cancels before the annual subscription runs its course. The complaint also alleges that the cancellation process is difficult and costly:<blockquote>In addition to failing to disclose the ETF to consumers when they subscribe, the complaint also alleges that Adobe uses the ETF to ambush consumers to deter them from cancelling their subscriptions. The complaint also alleges that Adobe’s cancellation processes are designed to make cancellation difficult for consumers. When consumers have attempted to cancel their subscription on the company’s website, they have been forced to navigate numerous pages in order to cancel.When consumers reach out to Adobe’s customer service to cancel, they encounter resistance and delay from Adobe representatives. Consumers also experience other obstacles, such as dropped calls and chats, and multiple transfers. Some consumers who thought they had successfully cancelled their subscription reported that the company continued to charge them until discovering the charges on their credit card statements.</blockquote>

===== Brigit =====
Brigit is a cash advance app. The FTC complaint alleges that the company "used manipulative design tricks to create a confusing and misleading cancellation process that made it difficult for consumers to cancel their subscriptions<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/11/ftc-sends-more-17-million-consumers-harmed-brigits-deceptive-claims-junk-fees-confusing-cancellation</ref>."

<references />