Unfair Subscription Practices
In a settlement worth over $26 million, Ocwen and CCHS are resolving a class action claiming that they enrolled customers in home warranty or service plans without their knowledge.
Le Tote, Inc. is one of a growing number of companies who provide goods and services by subscription or continuous service agreements. But the complaint for this class action alleges that Le Tote sells to consumers in California without obeying California laws on laws on automatic subscription renewal or continuous service agreements.
How would you like to buy an item online—some Adore Me underwear, for example—and find out, months later, that the company charged you each month for more underwear? No, it hasn’t sent you anything, but you’re welcome to pick something out for the money it’s already taken from you. It claims that when you made your purchase, you signed up for a “subscription.”
Yahoo! Inc., doing business as Rivals.com, has agreed to a settlement in a class action that claims the company violated California state laws. The complaint said that the company automatically renewed subscriptions in a way that violated California’s Automatic Renewal Law, failing to notify customers that they would be charged automatically on a recurring basis.
According to the complaint for this class action, Plaintiff Patrick Ames stopped by a T-Mobile to compare its prices with his current services plan, only to later find T-Mobile pursuing him to collect the “debt” he owed for services he did not sign up for.
California has detailed regulations about the requirements for automatic subscription renewals or renewals of continuous services, and the complaint for this class action alleges that Web.Com Group violated them, making automatic renewals and charging consumers’ credit or debit cards or accounts without obtaining proper, affirmative consent, and without an acknowledgement that would allow them to cancel easily.
GateHouse Media has settled a class action alleging that it violated Massachusetts law by engaging in deceptive business practices and not adequately disclosing surcharges associated with “premium” publications such as Lens magazine.