Posts

FTC Rule on Automatic Renewals

FTC Rule Proposal on Automatic Renewals

/in /by

FTC Rule on Automatic Renewals

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may soon pass new rules that strengthen federal protections for consumers who purchase products or services that are automatically renewed. The FTC rule proposal on automatic renewals would impose strict requirements on companies that offer automatic renewal subscriptions, or negative options, to consumers. Federal statutes and rules typically refer to automatic renewals as “negative options” because the absence of any affirmative action by the customer is enough to justify the auto-renewal. In other words, silence or inaction by the consumer is construed as acceptance of the auto-renewal contract. The amended FTC rule would make it easier for consumers to cancel their auto-renewal subscriptions, and it would impose civil penalties on companies that violate federal law.

For more information about the proposed amendments to the FTC Rule on Automatic Renewals, keep reading this blog.

What Is the Federal Law on Automatic Renewals?

California consumer protection lawyers are familiar with California’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), which regulates businesses that offer auto-renewing subscriptions to consumers in the state. The federal analogue to the ARL is the Negative Option Rule, which has been in effect in every state for 50 years. The Negative Option Rule is enforced through Section 5 of the FTC Act. In this context, automatic renewals are called “negative options” because sellers are allowed to interpret a customer’s silence as implied acceptance of an auto-renewal offer.

There are some major limitations on the Negative Option Rule. For example, the federal law only regulates prenotification plans. This means that the law only applies to companies that attach auto renewals to customer agreements before the sale of products or services.

FTC Proposes Amendment to the Federal Rule on Automatic Renewals

The FTC has proposed amendments to the federal Automatic Renewal Law. The suggested changes to federal law would have a significant effect on many state laws, especially in states that do not already regulate auto-renewal subscriptions. Some of the specific regulations that would be modified or added to federal law under the rule change include:

  • Mandatory upfront disclosures of auto-renewal plans.
  • Penalties for company misrepresentations about auto-renewal plans.
  • Obtaining consumer consent for enrolling in auto-renewal plans.
  • Annual reminders about automatic renewals.
  • Easier cancellation of auto-renewal plans.

Ultimately, the FTC will decide whether to approve or decline the proposed rule changes. The federal agency might also decide to make revisions and then open up the new amendment for public comments.

Auto-Renewal Disclosures

One of the biggest changes being proposed for federal law is to require businesses to disclose any auto-renewal terms in a way that ensures that customers will see the terms. The current federal law stipulates that businesses must place auto-renewal terms in “visual proximity” to a request for consent. By contrast, the new rules would require these disclosures to be “immediately adjacent,” or right next to, any text about customer consent so that the disclosures are easily noticeable or difficult to miss. In other words, companies won’t be able to hide the auto-renewal consent text.

Additionally, the proposed FTC rule calls for companies to disclose particular information before customers can legally consent to an automatic renewal plan:

  • Will payments be recurring?
  • What is the cost of the subscription, including the auto-renewals?
  • When will the subscription first automatically renew, and on what dates or at what intervals thereafter?
  • What is the deadline to cancel the subscription before it automatically renews?
  • What is the process for canceling the subscription?

The amended FTC rules would require companies to provide this information for all types of transactions involving recurring contracts, not just those occurring online. That’s because the rules would apply to offers made on the internet, in print publications and advertisements, during telephone solicitations, and in person at brick-and-mortar retail stores.

Misrepresentations About Auto-Renewal Plans

California consumer fraud lawyers will tell you that the state’s false advertising laws impose severe restrictions on the sales practices of companies that do business in the state. Companies that violate these laws may be subject to both civil liability and criminal penalties for egregious conduct. The proposed FTC rules would go a long way toward catching up with California’s regulations of companies that offer auto-renewal plans by applying federal regulations to misrepresentations about the entire sale agreement. For instance, the federal law would explicitly bar companies from misrepresenting a material fact related to any part of a transaction involving an automatically renewing subscription, even if the misrepresentation has nothing to do with the auto-renewal.

Consumer Consent for Auto-Renewals

The proposed changes to FTC rules would include a requirement that companies obtain affirmative consent from consumers before an auto-renewal contract becomes legally binding. Importantly, the customer’s consent for auto-renewal terms would have to be separate and apart from their consent for the transaction or purchase itself. For example, the business would not be able to hide the auto-renewal agreement or otherwise confuse the customer into thinking that they are only agreeing to the original purchase. As set forth by the recommended FTC rules, the request for affirmative consent from the consumer for the auto-renewal subscription would likely have to be a “check box, signature, or other substantially similar method.”

Additionally, companies will need to maintain a record of the customer-provided consent for a period of at least three (3) years from the date on which the subscription was first approved, or for one (1) year after the subscription has been cancelled.

Annual Reminders About Auto-Renewals

The FTC rule amendment under consideration would require companies to send annual reminders to customers about any auto-renewing subscriptions that involve products or services other than physical goods. The reminder must be sent annually even if it is not a yearly subscription plan. Additionally, these annual reminders would need to be in plain language that clearly identifies the product subscription or service being renewed, the dollar amount of the subscription, the frequency of the renewals, and the process for cancelling the subscription. The reminder would also have to be sent to the consumer in the same manner that they initially provided consent for the auto-renewal plan.

Cancellation of Auto-Renewals

The FTC rule changes would also require businesses to make it easy for customers to immediately cancel their auto-renewal subscriptions. For example, the cancellation option must use simple and easy-to-understand terms. The customer must also be given the ability to cancel through the same method they used to make the initial purchase, meaning that an online purchase could be cancelled on the company’s website.

Another requirement under consideration by the FTC is that companies would not be able to make any additional offers when a customer is attempting to cancel their auto-renewal subscription. These types of offers are known as “save attempts” because they tend to involve the business trying to save the auto-renewal subscription from cancellation. The idea here is that businesses should not be allowed to confuse customers with unclear terms or modifications that might dissuade them from cancelling their subscription.

FTC Rule on Auto-Renewals Regulates Business-to-Business Contracts

The California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) is considered by many to be the strongest such law in the country, imposing requirements on businesses that go far beyond anything in current federal laws. In at least one way, however, the proposed FTC rule would actually go further than California’s ARL. That’s because the federal law would apply to both consumer transactions and business-to-business transactions.

FTC Enforcement of Federal Auto-Renewal Laws

Amendments to the federal law on automatic renewals would greatly strengthen the ability of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce the law and crack down on violators. The FTC proposal would allow the government to seek restitution on behalf of consumers, as well as imposing civil penalties against companies that violate the law.

The federal law does not provide a civil remedy for individual consumers, but they can still seek financial compensation by filing a lawsuit based on state laws like the California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL). The federal law on auto renewals may also make it easier for consumers to file class action lawsuits under state law.

California’s Law on Automatic Renewal Offers

Companies that do business in California must follow stringent requirements when it comes to subscription renewals, including pre-transaction disclosures, affirmative consent, renewal notices, and cancellation policies. The purpose of the California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) is to end the practice of ongoing charging of consumer credit cards without consumers’ explicit consent.

Some of the specific requirements that the California ARL imposes on companies include the following:

  • Cancellations: Customers must be permitted to cancel their subscriptions online if they initially signed up online. Additionally, the cancellation process must be easy, with no steps that might obstruct or delay the process.
  • Long-term subscriptions: If the subscription is for a period of at least one year before the initial renewal, businesses must send renewal notices to customers to ensure that they are informed. This notice needs to be sent at least 15 days before the subscription is scheduled to be renewed.
  • Free gifts or promotions: If there was a free gift, trial subscription, or promotional discount involved, the company must send a notice of renewal to the customer before the trial period is over.

Call the California Consumer Fraud Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

The California consumer fraud attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP represent plaintiffs in civil suits filed in both state and federal courtrooms throughout the country. If you were charged for an automatically renewing subscription that you did not authorize, we can help you pursue restitution and monetary damages. Call 310-590-3927 or email us to discuss your case.

Amazon Alexa and Ring Settlements

FTC Settlement: Amazon’s Alexa, Ring Security Cameras, and Privacy Laws

/in /by

Amazon Alexa and Ring Settlements

Amazon recently reached a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), agreeing to pay $31 million in civil penalties for consumer privacy violations associated with the company’s Alexa voice assistant devices and Ring doorbell cameras. The DOJ alleged that Amazon engaged in a number of unreasonable privacy practices, ultimately resulting in an FTC settlement involving Amazon’s Alexa, Ring security cameras, and privacy laws.

The use of home security cameras and other internet-connected devices to spy on and illegally record customers has triggered several high-profile lawsuits, including a recent invasion of privacy claim against Arlo Home Security System in California. In the Amazon case, the tech behemoth was accused of violating federal laws by using Alexa voice devices and Ring doorbell cameras to unlawfully collect voice and video data, including data from children. The FTC and the DOJ said that Amazon illegally stored voice information, geolocation information, and video recordings without user permission. Moreover, the tech giant allegedly failed to delete kids’ Alexa recordings when those removals were requested by parents. The FTC and the DOJ filed complaints against Amazon in federal court, and now those cases have been settled: Amazon agreed to pay $25 million for its Alexa privacy violations that compromised children’s data and another $6 million for Ring privacy violations that exposed users to surveillance, threats, and harassment.

To learn more about the DOJ and FTC settlements reached with Amazon over the company’s Alexa voice service and home security cameras, keep reading this blog.

Federal Trade Commission Accuses Amazon of Invading Privacy of Alexa Users

The Amazon settlement resolved two separate claims filed against the tech company by the FTC:

  1. A claim that Amazon’s Alexa service was being used in violation of federal child privacy laws.
  2. A claim that the Ring doorbell cameras were being used to illegally spy on customers.

The FTC’s Alexa complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and it alleged that Amazon violated both the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by deceiving parents about how data collected by the Alexa devices would be utilized. Specifically, the FTC alleged that Amazon unlawfully recorded children’s voices and maintained their geolocation data while telling parents that they could delete voice recordings and other data collected by the Alexa app.

What Is Amazon’s Alexa Service?

Amazon’s Alexa is a cloud-based voice assistant service that is used by millions of Americans. Alexa allows consumers to interact with technology designed to make their lives easier. For example, Alexa can be used to check the weather, learn the latest news developments, perform online searches for information, listen to music and audiobooks, play games, order products from Amazon.com, and stream content on smart TVs. Global sales of Alexa devices have topped more than half a billion, with use of the Alexa voice service increasing every year since it reached the market. This includes more than 800,000 children under the age of 13 who have their own Alexa profiles.

Alexa devices are made by both Amazon and third-party manufacturers, meaning that the technology is available on hundreds of millions of devices. Although Amazon’s marketing of its Alexa service and Echo devices claims that they are “designed to protect users’ privacy,” the fact that the Alexa mobile application is connected to the internet means that the data recorded by the device is accessible online and exposes users to scary breaches of their privacy.

Amazon Violations of the FTC Act

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) prohibits companies from engaging in “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Amazon was accused of committing multiple violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act:

  • Falsely representing that users of the Alexa app could delete their geolocation data upon request.
  • Falsely representing that Alexa users could delete voice recordings, including voice recordings of their children.
  • Unfair privacy practices that caused substantial injury to users of the Alexa service.

Amazon Violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is a federal law that was passed by Congress in 1998, and it was intended to strengthen general privacy laws with specific protections for minors under the age of 13 who use the internet. The impetus for COPPA was a rise in websites that were secretly collecting the personal data of children. The COPPA Rule is codified in Section 1303(b) of COPPA, 15 U.S.C. § 6502(b), and Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553. The COPPA Rule imposes strict requirements on the operators of commercial websites that target children: these websites must notify parents about the information collected. COPPA also requires website operators to give parents the option to delete their kids’ information at any time.

Although Amazon specifically promised Alexa users in a “Children’s Privacy Disclosure” that the company would delete their data upon request, the FTC alleged that Amazon continued to maintain children’s data long after such requests had been made. FTC consumer protection chief Samuel Levine observed that COPPA explicitly forbids companies “from keeping children’s data forever.”

Moreover, even in those instances when Amazon did erase the data, they reportedly retained written transcripts of the children’s recordings in a database that was accessible by employees. Amazon did not disclose to parents that the company was keeping the written transcripts and continuing to access them. FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said that Amazon deceived parents about its data deletion practices by failing to comply with parental requests to erase children’s voice data collected by Alexa. This was a violation of federal laws meant to protect children against online threats and privacy invasions.

Amazon tried to justify its actions by saying that it kept children’s voice information to improve the company’s voice recognition algorithm, to help the company better respond to voice commands, and to give parents enough time to review the information. According to Amazon, the algorithm is a form of artificial intelligence (AI) that learns and gains capabilities as it acquires more information. Artificial intelligence has become extremely controversial as an increasing number of tech companies have started to introduce AI products and applications into the marketplace. This is one reason that it was so important for the FTC to send a strong message to Amazon and others that using AI and other technologies to invade customer privacy will not be tolerated by the government. The Amazon Alexa settlement will bar the company from using children’s data to train the company’s algorithms.

Amazon Settles FTC Case Alleging Alexa Consumer Privacy Invasions

Samuel Levine, the FTC consumer protection chief, commented on the Amazon Alexa settlement and highlighted “Amazon’s history of misleading parents, keeping children’s recordings indefinitely, and flouting parents’ deletion requests.” All of these actions violated the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and “sacrificed privacy for profits.”

The Alexa settlement with the FTC includes a number of provisions:

  • Amazon must pay a $25 million civil penalty.
  • Amazon can no longer use children’s geolocation data or voice information for the purpose of creating or improving company products.
  • Amazon must delete any inactive Alexa accounts belonging to children.
  • Amazon must notify all users about the FTC action against the company, as well as the settlement.
  • Amazon is prohibited from misrepresenting its privacy policies in the future, especially as they pertain to geolocation data, voice recordings, and children’s voice information.
  • Amazon must create and strictly enforce a privacy program related to geolocation data.

As part of the Amazon Alexa settlement, the company will have to implement privacy safeguards for child users. The company will also have to make significant changes to the way it stores Alexa data: there will be a requirement that Amazon delete certain information right away so that underage children won’t have their information exposed. Amazon has also agreed to delete child accounts that are inactive, as well as voice data and geolocation data from active accounts.

In the wake of the Alexa settlement, FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya warned companies “sprinting to do the same” thing as Amazon that they should think twice, especially if their products will be used by kids. Bedoya, who has two children of his own, said that “nothing is more visceral to a parent than the sound of their child’s voice.”

Department of Justice Files Complaint Against Amazon for Invading Privacy of Ring Home Security Camera Users

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) doesn’t just protect children’s privacy; the agency is committed to protecting the privacy of all consumers. That’s why the FTC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) brought a second case against Amazon alleging that the tech giant violated federal law by allowing employees and contractors to access Ring doorbell cameras used by customers, with the access leading to illegal surveillance of the customers. Additionally, the FTC said that Ring did not take sufficient actions to stop hackers from accessing customer cameras.

Amazon Subsidiary Company Ring Sells Home Security Cameras

Ring is a subsidiary company of Amazon that primarily sells home security cameras, doorbells, and other accessories that are connected to the internet. Amazon has sold more than one million indoor cameras to customers in the United States and internationally. These cameras are typically used on the exterior entryways of a home, but they can also be used as indoor cameras to monitor private spaces such as bedrooms and bathrooms. It is these indoor cameras that were frequently targeted by Ring employees and hackers looking to spy on customers, with nearly 40% of all Ring devices that were compromised being either Stick Up Cams or Indoor Cams marketed primarily for indoor use.

Amazon bought Ring in 2018 for roughly $1 billion. Although most of the alleged privacy violations happened before Amazon acquired Ring, the parent company is still liable for any violations of federal law. Ring security cameras are marketed by Amazon as affordable cameras that can be attached to houses or, more commonly, to doors so that users can monitor entry into their homes. But while customers believed that they were securing their homes by using Ring cameras, they were actually exposing their homes to nefarious actors – many of whom were employed by Amazon.

DOJ Complaint Against Amazon for Ring Doorbell Cameras

The Justice Department filed its Ring complaint on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint alleged that Amazon violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in connection with the company’s Ring cameras.

Ring Security Cameras Illegally Accessed by Company Employees

According to the DOJ complaint, Ring home security cameras were accessed by company workers who subsequently spied on and harassed customers. In fact, the workers who gained access to the devices were also able to communicate directly with customers and threaten them. There were documented instances of female customers being cursed at in their bedrooms, children being subjected to racist slurs, and a number of Ring customers receiving death threats. These same individuals harassing and terrorizing Ring customers also used the cameras to set off false alarms and to change home security settings.

The Ring home security videos were reportedly available to every employee, and this was true for all customer videos over a period of several years. The complaint filed by the Department of Justice in federal court stated that Ring “gave every employee…full access to every customer video.” Beyond allowing unauthorized access, Ring’s lapses when it came to customer security also meant that company employees were able to download customer videos and then share those videos freely with anyone. The videos could be downloaded, saved, and even transferred by both Ring employees and contractors based out of Ukraine.

Ring Employees Spied on Customers

One Ring employee allegedly accessed and viewed thousands of recordings from Ring security videos being used by female customers. According to the FTC, this employee targeted 81 different women who were using the Ring Stick Up Cams. The employee’s criminal actions included focusing searches on Ring cameras with names suggesting that they had been placed in customer bedrooms or bathrooms. The illegal spying reportedly continued for months before Ring took any action at all to stop it.

Another Ring employee was accused of accessing a camera belonging to a female employee and subsequently spying on her by watching video recordings stored on her account.

These privacy beaches continued for months and, in many cases, years before Ring finally took action to limit what the FTC called “dangerously overbroad access” and impose any kind of technical or procedural restrictions on employees who were trying to access customers’ home security videos. Additionally, the FTC complaint stated that Ring did not obtain consent for human review of video recordings, and that the company “buried information in its Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.” This meant that consumers had no way of knowing that Ring employees had access to their stored videos.

Ring Exposed Consumers to Cyberattacks by Hackers

Ring also had insufficient security measures to protect customer information against hacking, which led to some customer accounts being compromised via credential stuffing and brute force attacks. The FTC alleged that the doorbell company’s failure to fix “bugs in the system” allowed hackers to access customer cameras and, in some cases, to harass and frighten customers. This stemmed from “system vulnerabilities,” which Ring failed to repair despite knowing that the problems existed.

During one cyberattack committed against Ring, more than 55,000 U.S. customers had their Ring accounts compromised. Nearly 1,000 of these customer accounts had their stored videos unlawfully accessed, which included viewing, downloading, and sharing of recordings, livestream videos, and customer profiles.

Amazon Settles Ring Consumer Privacy Complaint

The Ring settlement with the DOJ and the FTC requires Amazon to pay $5.8 million. That money will be used to issue refunds to Ring customers who were affected by any privacy violations and data breaches. The settlement also requires Amazon to delete Ring data that had been stored since before Amazon acquired the company. Amazon must also implement new privacy and security measures to ensure that consumer data is not exposed or compromised, including multi-factor authentication before access is granted to customer accounts.

Both the Alexa settlement and the Ring settlement will need to be approved by federal judges before they take effect.

California Laws Protecting Consumers Against Invasion of Privacy: CIPA, CCPA, CLRA, and UCL

California’s consumer protection laws are among the strongest in the country, with the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) providing robust protections against invasion of privacy, false advertising, and consumer fraud that go even further than federal laws like the FTC Act and COPPA. For example, companies that do business in California are not allowed to expose or share the sensitive personal information that you disclose when you use their products, services, or websites.

California’s digital privacy and consumer protection laws also explicitly prohibit companies from illegal wiretapping on websites, unauthorized recording of online chats, sharing the personal data of customers, false advertising that misleads consumers, and other deceptive business practices.

Contact the California Consumer Protection Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

Did you purchase or use a home security camera, doorbell camera, Alexa device, or any other internet-connected device? If so, your privacy may have been invaded in violation of both federal and California state laws. The experienced Los Angeles consumer protection lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP can help you file a civil suit for invasion of privacy and get financial compensation. Call 310-590-3927 or email us today.

Shipping Insurance Claims & UCL

Shipping Insurance Claims and the UCL

/in /by

Shipping Insurance Claims & UCL

Many companies that offer shipping insurance on e-commerce sites are violating California insurance laws, which have strict requirements about who is allowed to offer insurance and how that insurance can be offered. Moreover, California’s insurance laws can serve as a predicate for civil lawsuits brought under other statutes, including the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL). When it comes to shipping insurance claims and the UCL, there is strong legal precedent in favor of consumers who are charged for insurance by an unlicensed agent. Additionally, the shipping insurance offered by online sellers is often just a surcharge on services already being provided, which is business fraud that can also be the basis for a civil suit.

To learn more about how California consumer protection laws can be used to file a shipping insurance lawsuit against e-commerce sellers, keep reading.

Filing a Shipping Insurance Lawsuit Under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL)

Some companies that offer shipping insurance on their e-commerce websites expressly label it as “insurance,” while other companies call it “safe ship” or use another term. In fact, it is common for online sellers to refer to an insurance fee by some other name. For example, the plaintiff in Miller v. Travel Guard Group alleged that the company mislabeled the travel insurance fee on their website in order to get around the state prohibition against unlicensed agents selling insurance. Regardless of what term is used, however, both the California Insurance Code and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) protect consumers against unlawful offers of insurance.

Section 1631 of the California Insurance Code imposes licensing requirements on any entity that seeks to sell insurance in the state. If a company violates the California Insurance Code by attempting to sell insurance as an unlicensed agent, consumers may be able to bring a UCL claim. Additionally, companies that hide a shipping insurance charge on a purchase could be exposed to lawsuits under the UCL for false, misleading, deceptive, and unlawful marketing and sales practices.

Section 17200 of the UCL

The California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) is set forth in Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The statute defines “unfair competition” as:

  1. Any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.
  2. Unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.

The UCL is a sweeping law that is meant to protect both consumers and businesses. In fact, the statute has been interpreted broadly by California courts to cover a wide variety of business acts and consumer transactions, including antitrust violations, intellectual property claims, employment claims, misbranded drug products, and disputes over shipping insurance charges.

Both federal and California courts have held that companies may be sued for breach of contract and unfair competition when they violate state insurance laws. In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said that the California Insurance Code can serve as a predicate for a claim brought under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) even though the UCL does not explicitly provide for a private right of action for shipping insurance claims. In Miller v. Travel Guard Group, the California Northern District Court went even further by ruling that consumers may bring a claim under the UCL based on both an illegal agent theory and an illegal premium theory when the insurance fee is automatically included in the total price and the customer is not given an opportunity to opt out of paying it.

Only Licensed Agents Can Sell Insurance in California

California has strict laws regulating exactly who can sell insurance. Whether it’s auto insurance, property insurance, health insurance, general liability insurance, or shipping insurance, only licensed agents are allowed to offer insurance to customers. One way that California law protects consumers against insurance fraud is by requiring many types of insurance agents (e.g., home and auto insurance) to file bonds with the state insurance commission.

In order to charge customers for shipping insurance, a company must comply with California’s insurance laws. This means that insurance agents need to be registered with the state. Beyond that, owners, insurance agents, and even non-licensed employees must provide fingerprints that are kept on file with the state. All of this is in addition to standard business certification requirements, such as securing a certificate of good standing if the company is a corporation and a certificate of organization if the company is an LLC.

Friedman v. AARP Established Precedent for Shipping Insurance Claims in California

In Friedman v. AARP, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court issued an important ruling that set precedent for subsequent cases involving offers of insurance to California consumers. The plaintiff in Friedman was a Medicare recipient who purchased UnitedHealth supplemental health insurance coverage through the AARP (previously known as the American Association of Retired Persons). Since AARP earned a 5% commission on the sale, they were essentially acting as an insurance seller without a license. This would be in direct violation of California Insurance Code § 1631. That statute prohibits anyone from soliciting, negotiating, or effecting an insurance contract unless the person holds a valid license from the California Commissioner of Insurance. California Insurance Code § 1633 goes even further by explicitly prohibiting an unlicensed company from “transacting” insurance regardless of whether the company reports itself as an insurance agent.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in the case was Jerald Friedman. He was one of several AARP members who filed a class action against AARP because the organization allegedly charged inflated insurance rates for Medigap coverage. (Medigap policies provide supplemental health insurance for costs that are not already covered by Medicare.) These exaggerated charges allegedly stemmed from a hidden commission that AARP was collecting.

The lower court in Friedman dismissed a class action brought by the plaintiff under the UCL. The Ninth Circuit then reversed that decision because the federal appellate court determined that AARP’s fee arrangement qualified as a commission on every insurance sale. In other words, AARP was acting as an insurance agent by selling insurance.

UCL Violation

Section 17200 of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) explicitly prohibits companies from engaging in “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” AARP was accused of violating the UCL by committing the unlawful act of selling insurance without a license.

Since AARP is not licensed to sell insurance in California, it is unlawful for the group to offer insurance to its California members. AARP marketed the Medigap policy to its members in a number of ways, including television ads, websites, and materials sent directly through the mail. A lot of these advertisements included text reading, “This is a solicitation of insurance.” Although AARP later tried to describe its insurance commission as a “royalty,” the federal government determined that it was still a commission being charged on top of the typical monthly premium. This meant that AARP was essentially acting as an insurance agent despite not having a license to do so in California.

Unlawful to Conceal a Shipping Insurance Charge in California

Under California law, there is an expectation that consumers will be able to provide informed consent for purchases they make online. Unfortunately, some businesses trick customers into paying more for shipping insurance with hidden or confusing features on their e-commerce websites, particularly when it comes to placing and finalizing orders. The businesses generate additional revenues by offering a service that they are not legally allowed to offer without a valid, state-issued license.

Companies that do business in California and use deceptive marketing and sales tactics could be subject to civil suits for violating the UCL. That’s because the statute prohibits false, misleading, deceptive, and fraudulent acts or practices, which may include attempts by the business to deceive customers about hidden shipping insurance fees. An experienced Los Angeles insurance claim lawyer can help consumers bring a lawsuit against companies that violate the UCL by making an unlawful offer of shipping insurance.

UCL Claims

When consumers unknowingly purchase shipping insurance on a website due to misleading and/or deceptive information, they suffer an injury. The Unfair Competition Law can be used as the basis for a shipping insurance lawsuit if the defendant violated the “fraudulent” prong of the statute by misleading customers about the additional charge. In these cases, the plaintiff will need to establish two elements to bring a successful claim: (1) that the company deceived the public in some way either in an advertisement or during the checkout process; and (2) that the consumer relied upon the company’s statements or advertisement.

There are several ways that a company could violate the UCL by attempting to charge customers for shipping insurance:

  • Confusing Language: The company might use ambiguous and confusing language to describe the insurance charge, which means that consumers won’t necessarily understand what it is that they are purchasing.
  • Hiding the Insurance Charge: It’s also possible that the company might hide the total purchase price from the consumer by failing to clearly inform them of the total cost when shipping insurance is included, or by failing to allow the consumer to edit their order once a shipping insurance charge has been added.
  • Lack of Consent: In the most egregious cases, the company might not even give the consumer an opportunity to consent to the shipping insurance charge. There have been cases in which a company automatically charges for shipping insurance unless the purchaser clicks on a random and inconspicuous “decline” button before completing the order.

When a company fails to disclose information that consumers need in order to make informed decisions about a purchase, it could be a violation of the UCL. Whether it’s a misleading advertisement or a concealed charge on a company’s website order form, California consumers may be able to bring a shipping insurance claim under the UCL.

CLRA Claims

This type of conduct by a business might also violate the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), which prohibits certain unlawful acts involving consumers. For example, the CLRA explicitly forbids companies from “advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised.”

The ordering and check-out processes on some e-commerce websites are confusing and possibly even deceptive. As a result, it’s very possible that consumers are unknowingly purchasing shipping insurance as an upcharge or add-on because websites don’t make the additional charge immediately apparent to site visitors. Moreover, it’s possible that some consumers would not have purchased the product at all if they had known about the shipping insurance charge. Worse yet, many consumers might not become aware of the additional charges until much later when their bank account or credit card is debited for the order.

Contact the Los Angeles False Advertising Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Were you charged for shipping insurance while making a purchase on an e-commerce website? The Los Angeles false advertising lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP represent clients in civil lawsuits and class action lawsuits against companies that commit business fraud, including litigation involving shipping insurance claims against companies that illegally offer shipping insurance in online transactions. Call 310-590-3927 or email us to schedule a free initial consultation.