Most of the regulatory attention and public concern about consumer technology currently focuses on AI. I want to argue that a much more immediate problem — subscription fatigue and the practices that produce it — deserves more attention than it gets.
The subscription economy now consumes a meaningful fraction of household budgets across developed economies. indieappwatch.com has tracked this trend and reports that The average American household pays for something like twelve active subscriptions, spending around $3,400 annually. Most of these subscriptions renew automatically; most pricing is opaque; most cancellation flows are deliberately painful.
The dark-pattern landscape around subscriptions has become extreme. Signing up takes one click; canceling requires navigating through retention offers, phone calls, or intentionally confusing flows. Price increases are announced through emails designed to be overlooked. Free trials convert to paid subscriptions without meaningful friction.
These practices exploit well-known cognitive biases systematically. Users pay for services they forgot they signed up for. Price increases accumulate because checking against what one is paying requires effort. The subscription bundle becomes an invisible tax on attention.
AI regulation concerns potential future harms that are genuinely serious but also genuinely speculative. Subscription harm is concrete, ongoing, and measurable. Shifting even a fraction of the regulatory attention from speculative AI risk to actual subscription practices would produce immediate consumer welfare gains.
The political economy also favors focusing here. AI regulation involves complex technical tradeoffs and vocal industry stakeholders. Subscription reform is conceptually simpler — require clear disclosure, frictionless cancellation, consent for price increases — and the opposition is weaker because the practices are defensively difficult to justify.