I'd like to see the actual order pages, etc for the cases mentioned on this page - it seems a little crazy...unless the terms were really tiny and in a bad color...

"While embedding in statute the ban on “unclear” and “inconspicuous” negative option sales, ROSCA does not define the meaning of “clear and conspicuous” but leaves that task to the FTC. According to the agency, for a disclosure to be conspicuous, it must be “unavoidable.” What, exactly, does “unavoidable” mean?"
"Despite being provided multiple times, all well above the fold and viewable, One Technologies’s negative option disclosures weren’t up to snuff, according to the FTC, because they weren’t big enough or bright enough or prominently positioned enough. Because they weren’t “enough” of what the FTC wanted, the company is paying $22 million to settle the charges. The moral of the case: not disclosing negative option terms in the exact color, font, type size, and place desired by the FTC can be expensive indeed."
"Alas, the FTC will not tell you what shade, font, type size and other minutiae of disclosure it will deem “conspicuous.” In fact, don’t expect the FTC ever to tell you. It will be up to you to guess, and unless you want to be the next negative option marketer writing the FTC a multi-million check, you best guess wisely. "
Full report (worth reading):
FTC Ratchets Up