You stated that "The law states that they must send you a copy, seperate from what is in the browser:"
You submit as proof of that statement the statement from Lang, Michener: "the written copy of the Internet Agreement may be transmitted to the consumer by way of e-mail, by fax, by regular mail or by any other manner that allows the supplier to prove that the consumer received it."
I submit that copies sent by email or fax are sent into the ether. The only proof of receipt is a negative one, i.e. it doesn't bounce back to the sender. Obviously, that does not prove it was received by the intended recipient. Regular mail can be sent requiring a return receipt, but that obviously is not required by the new law, or email would not be an acceptable method of delivery.
It appears to me that verification of IP address and login via a browser would be better proof of receipt than a non-bouncing email. <g>
I've gone in to this collateral subject only to illustrate the fact that laws as written do not always reflect the intent of the lawmakers and can often have unexpected interpretations and results <g>
The original question was whether the new law bans auto-renewal (negative-option billing) of internet agreements when that option has been agreed to by the consumer in a consumer agreement executed in a manner prescribed by law.
Section 42 seems (to me) to indicate that internet agreements may be so renewed. Specifically, the Ancestry subscription agreements are for the same service(s), for the same interval, so are not amended, and the consumer has the option to terminate or renew.
The question I have, and have not seen answered, is whether for renewal to occur, conditions of BOTH Sections 41 and 42 must be met, or whether meeting the requirements of one Section only (42) is sufficient. I have read and reread, and I am just not sure.