If your customers are businesses, ROSCA may not have been high on your compliance radar. It may be time for another look. Recent FTC enforcement actions involving services sold to small businesses are a useful reminder that consumer-protection scrutiny does not necessarily stop at the B2B line. And the lesson is broader than ROSCA. Depending on the transaction and the conduct at issue, regulators may look to ROSCA’s requirements for online negative-option transactions, Section 5 of the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices, and applicable state consumer-protection and automatic-renewal laws.
ROSCA for B2B transactions?
Although B2B transactions have not been a frequent focus of the FTC’s ROSCA enforcement, the FTC has previously invoked ROSCA in a small number of cases involving services sold to businesses. Those enforcement matters have not, however, produced substantial judicial guidance on ROSCA’s application in the B2B context. Whether, and how, ROSCA applies to particular B2B arrangements remains an issue to watch. And even where ROSCA is not at issue, recent B2B enforcement underscores that the FTC may scrutinize many of the same practices through its Section 5 authority. But the broader compliance lesson is clear: B2B companies should be paying attention to the same sales, disclosure, billing and cancellation practices that have long drawn scrutiny in consumer-facing transactions.
From the sales pitch and enrollment flow through billing, renewal, customer support and cancellation, recent enforcement highlights familiar themes: pricing, disclosure of material terms, authorization for charges, customer service and cancellation. Selling to a business does not by itself place your practices beyond consumer-protection scrutiny. If you offer subscriptions, platforms, payment processing, software, equipment or other ongoing services to businesses, now is a good time to pressure-test the experience you are offering your business clients.
- Make the real price easy to understand. If the economics involve transaction fees, equipment costs, recurring charges, minimums, inactivity fees, early termination fees or other price-related conditions, make sure the overall message matches what customers will actually pay. A technically accurate disclosure may not solve a more prominent pricing claim that conveys a different message. Further, don’t wait until checkout or post-checkout to provide material pricing disclosures that customers need to understand the service or offer. Key pricing terms should be presented clearly and before the customer agrees to the transaction.
- Bring important terms forward. Contract length, automatic renewal, early termination fees, separate equipment obligations and other significant restrictions should not first become apparent deep in a lengthy agreement or after the customer tries to cancel. Recent enforcement specifically targets disclosures appearing many pages into agreements or late in enrollment flows.
- Get clear consent before adding charges or services. Existing payment information should not become a shortcut for enrolling customers in additional products or imposing new recurring charges. Make sure customers understand what they are agreeing to and obtain appropriate authorization before charging them.
- Look beyond the contract or checkout page. Sales scripts, websites, quote sheets, checkout screens, demos and oral representations all matter. Make sure the story the sales team tells is consistent with the agreement the customer ultimately signs.
- Check whether operations support the marketing. Claims such as “24/7 support,” “risk free,” “free” and guaranteed savings are objective claims that should reflect how the service actually performs, not just how it is designed to perform. How can you test that? Look at client complaints, support tickets, cancellation data and other internal information to assess whether your marketing claims and the customer’s actual experience line up.
- Make cancellation straightforward. Customer service matters, especially if a business client is trying to cancel. Multiple transfers, retention conversations that customers cannot bypass, narrow calling windows, repeated refusals, unreturned calls, or additional forms and approvals can turn an otherwise legitimate cancellation process into an enforcement risk. Companies should test the process themselves, including whether a customer who clearly says “cancel” can actually stop future charges when they reach out. Another good test: is cancellation as straightforward as enrollment?
The practical takeaway
Don’t rely on the sophistication of the customer, a signed contract or the fact that a transaction is B2B as a substitute for a clear and accurate customer experience. Whether the relevant framework is ROSCA, Section 5 or another applicable law, “our customers are businesses” should not end the compliance analysis. For recurring services in particular, review the customer journey end to end and ask these foundational questions: Did we clearly tell customers what they were getting and what it would cost, including any termination or early-cancellation costs? Did we obtain appropriate authorization for the applicable charges? And can customers cancel without unnecessary friction? Those questions increasingly matter regardless of whether customers are individuals or businesses.
