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.

Federal Law on Automatic Renewals

Federal Law on Automatic Renewals

/in /by

Federal Law on Automatic Renewals

Federal law on automatic renewals has gotten stronger and more far-reaching in recent years. This has come in response to states like California that have started to take the lead when it comes to protecting consumers against deceptive advertising and business fraud. There are several prominent laws at both the California state level and the federal level that govern retail subscription programs and automatic renewal programs, including the FTC Rule on Automatic Renewals. Additionally, both state and federal agencies have begun increasing their enforcement of these laws in recent years. For example, the California Automatic Renewal Task Force (CART) makes sure that businesses comply with California’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), while the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is actively enforcing federal laws regulating negative options and recurring contracts. Before contacting federal or state agencies, consumers who have been billed without consent for an auto-renewal subscription should speak with a qualified consumer protection attorney.

To learn more about the federal law on automatic renewal subscriptions, keep reading this blog.

What Is the Federal Trade Commission Rule on Auto-Renewals?

Companies that do business in California while offering automatic renewal and subscription programs must comply with applicable state and federal laws, including the California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL). In fact, California has served as a model for automatic renewal legislation passed by other states, as well as federal statutes and rules that govern auto-renewals.

Federal law uses slightly different terminology for automatic renewal subscriptions: they are instead referred to as “negative option plans.” Basically, a negative option plan is one that is automatically renewed if the consumer fails to take any kind of affirmative action to cancel or not renew it.

The California false advertising lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP represent plaintiffs in civil litigation both individually and as members of class action lawsuits. We also regularly appear in both state and federal courts, so we are very familiar with the relevant consumer protection laws.

How Is the Federal Automatic Renewal Law Enforced?

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces federal law on automatic renewals and the Negative Option Rule. Federal guidelines for automatic renewals tend to focus on up-front disclosures from businesses, informed consent from customers, and uncomplicated cancellation procedures.

In addition to the FTC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is also involved in enforcement of federal laws concerning automatic renewal and subscription practices.

Proposed Amendment to FTC Rule on Automatic Renewals

The FTC proposed an amendment to the agency rule on automatic renewals that could have a serious impact on how companies do business in California and other states. When the FTC asked for public input on auto-renewal policies, the response was overwhelming: the federal agency received thousands of comments from consumers who complained that businesses were deceptively renewing subscriptions without consent.

Some pro-business organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have objected to the FTC’s proposed rules for auto renewal subscription services, which the group says would “impose substantial and burdensome regulations on the business community.” But similar consumer fraud regulations already exist in California: statutes like the Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) all provide strong protections for consumers against companies that do business in the state.

If the FTC rule change is approved and goes into effect, it will certainly affect businesses that offer automatic renewal plans in California and other states. That’s because federal law would allow for the imposition of civil penalties of up to $50,000 for each violation of the law.

Other Federal Laws Regulating Automatic Renewals: ROSCA and TSR

The Federal Trade Commission rule on negative options is the main federal law that governs automatic renewal offers by companies. In addition to the FTC rule, there are a couple of other federal statutes that also apply to automatic renewals:

  • The Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA)
  • The Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR)

Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA)

Under federal law, there are disclosure requirements for auto-renewal terms when a customer signs up for a subscription online. The Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) requires companies to clearly and conspicuously disclose “all material terms of the transaction” prior to obtaining the customer’s billing information. ROSCA also imposes on businesses a requirement to obtain express informed consent for an auto-renewal plan before getting customers’ billing information.

Unfortunately for consumers, ROSCA has limited application to auto-renewal plans because it only applies to online purchases.

Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR)

Another important federal law governing automatic renewals is the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). The TSR requires certain disclosures when a telemarketer offers a product or service that includes an automatic renewal subscription, such as the material terms and conditions of the purchase.

State Laws: What Is the California Law on Automatic Renewals of Subscriptions?

California’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) goes even further than federal law by explicitly prohibiting companies from auto-renewing subscriptions without first obtaining affirmative consent from the subscriber. That type of consent can only be given when the customer is aware of what exactly they are agreeing to, so this means companies must “clearly and conspicuously” disclose the subscription terms, including the price of the service, length of the subscription, and any recurring charges. Clear and conspicuous disclosure can be achieved by using all-caps, highlighted text, colored text, boldface font, and anything else that might contrast or differentiate an auto-subscription from other terms or conditions.

Canceling Subscriptions Under California’s ARL

The California Auto Renewal Task Force (CART) is a group of district attorneys in Los Angeles County, San Diego County, Santa Barbara County, Santa Clara County, and Santa Cruz County who enforce the ARL against companies that mislead and deceive California consumers with confusing subscription policies that automatically renew without authorization and that can be difficult to cancel afterwards.

Doug Allen, an assistant district attorney with the Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office and also a member of CART, says that the ARL is specifically designed “to make it as easy to get out of [an auto-renewal subscription] as it was to get into it.” The ARL stipulates that businesses must provide full disclosure to customers about the terms and conditions of all subscription renewal plans, including automatic renewals. Additionally, the ARL requires businesses to make it easy for customers to cancel a subscription on the backend.

Most Common Violations of the California ARL

Some of the most egregious violations of the California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) involve companies that intentionally make it tough for a customer to cancel by bouncing the customer around when they call or email. For example, a retailer might inform the customer that they will need to speak to a “supervisor” who is conveniently never available. This is done with the full intention of ensuring that the customer remains enrolled in the subscription program. When a customer tries to cancel on the company’s website, the site needs to be easy to navigate and the cancellation process needs to be simple. The ARL also prohibits businesses from attempting to drag out the cancellation with an online survey; any surveys must be provided after the cancellation is complete.

Contact the California Consumer Protection Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Tauler Smith LLP is a law firm that handles consumer fraud litigation in both state and federal courts across the United States. Our consumer protection lawyers have extensive experience representing plaintiffs in these matters, so we understand the nuances of automatic renewal laws that may apply in your particular case. If you were billed for a monthly subscription contract that was automatically renewed without your consent, we can assist you. Call or email us now to schedule a free initial consultation.

NBC Bay Area News & California ARL

NBC Bay Area News Report on California Automatic Renewal Law

/in /by

NBC Bay Area News & California ARL

Companies that do business in California are legally required to disclose an automatic renewal policy to customers before auto-renewing their subscription. A recent NBC Bay Area News report on the California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) details how Chegg, an education technology company, has been accused of deceptively renewing subscriptions to a textbook rental service and then making it difficult for customers to cancel the subscriptions. The plaintiff in the lawsuit is seeking $2,500 in damages, which is what the ARL allows the court to impose against companies that violate the statute.

The Los Angeles consumer fraud attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP are seeking additional plaintiffs to join a class action lawsuit for ARL violations by Chegg and other companies.

KNTV San Francisco Bay Area News: ARL Claim Against Textbook Company Chegg

Battling auto renewal? Can’t cancel? Can’t get a refund? You have rights!

[…]

In Washington, the Federal Trade Commission is currently looking to toughen federal rules that govern auto renewals – and give consumers more power. When the FTC asked for public comment this spring, it got more than a thousand of them. Some businesses and business groups bristled. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce commented that the FTC was imposing “substantial and burdensome regulations on the business community.”

The federal auto-renew fight is just beginning. But it’s settled in California. A little-known law called the California “Auto Renewal Law” is already on the books. “The fundamental aspect of the law, the way it’s phrased and how it’s designed, is to make it as easy to get out of as it was to get into it,” said Doug Allen, Assistant District Attorney in the Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office.

[…]

“This isn’t the biggest case out there, but I think it’s an important case nonetheless,” said attorney Robert Tauler. He filed a federal suit in San Jose. Tauler argues Chegg did “not use bold, highlighted, all-capitalized, or different-colored text for the automatic renewal terms” when Sheri signed up. He’s asking the court to order Chegg to refund Sheri – plus any other auto-renewed customers like her. Tauler wants a class action – to set some precedent. “I’d like businesses to be on the lookout that they should comply – whether they are large or they are small,” he said.

You can see the entire report on the NBC Bay Area News website.

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.

California Unfair Competition Law

California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL)

/in /by

California Unfair Competition Law

California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) is one of the most important consumer protection laws in the country. California courts tend to interpret the UCL broadly so that it applies to a wide range of unethical business practices. The statute explicitly prohibits companies from engaging in unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business actions. It also prohibits companies from using false advertising. Businesses that violate the UCL may be subject to penalties that include financial compensation, monetary fines, and injunctions to stop committing certain acts. This means that consumers who purchase a product or service from a business that violates the UCL may be able to have an experienced California consumer fraud lawyer file a lawsuit and seek financial restitution.

To learn more about the California Unfair Competition Law, keep reading this blog.

What Is the California Unfair Competition Law?

The California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) is codified in Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200. The UCL protects consumers against business fraud, false advertising, and other deceptive practices by placing limits on companies doing business in California. The statute also protects honest companies and ensures that competition remains fair and strong, with no one company allowed to stifle competition and gain a competitive advantage by breaking the law.

Importantly, the UCL applies to all private companies doing business in California. This means that if a company is based in another state, if they sell to consumers located in the state, or even if they advertise in the state, they can be sued under the UCL.

What Is “Unfair Competition”?

The California Unfair Competition Law defines “unfair competition” as any of the following:

  1. An unlawful business act or practice.
  2. An unfair business act or practice.
  3. A fraudulent business act or practice.
  4. Unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.
  5. Any other act prohibited by the UCL.

Courts have interpreted the UCL broadly so that just about any violation of the law by a business can also constitute a violation, so long as the action or practice injured consumers or gave the business an advantage over its competitors. One of the most common examples of unfair competition in consumer transactions is when a company makes misrepresentations to customers about the type, quality, or cost of a product or service.

Deceptive Advertising

Examples of deceptive advertising that may violate the UCL include robocalling customers, using bait and switch advertising to trick customers, using fake endorsements in ads, exaggerating product descriptions, omitting important information about a product or service in an advertisement, manipulating prices, using false reference pricing in ads, and infringing on another company’s intellectual property.

Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Acts

The UCL defines “unlawful” business acts or practices as any action taken by a company that violates state or federal law. Even if the company committed the unlawful act just once, that can be enough to trigger legal action under the UCL.

An “unfair” business act or practice, as defined by the UCL, is typically committed by either a company or a business competitor. Generally speaking, a company violates the UCL when they attempt to sell goods or services that harm consumers. In the context of a business competitor, it is considered an unfair business act when the company does something that broadly undermines competition in the marketplace.

The UCL also prohibits “fraudulent” business acts or practices, which means any conduct that misleads or deceives consumers. When a consumer relies on false statements made by the company in an advertisement or at the point of sale and subsequently suffers an economic injury, they may be able to bring a UCL claim for restitution.

Private Right of Action Under Section 17200 of the UCL

The California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) allows both private parties and public prosecutors to take legal action against companies that commit fraudulent business acts. In most cases, an individual who has suffered an injury because of unfair competition must have their lawsuit filed by a county or city prosecutor. When the lawsuit is filed as a class action, however, a consumer may bring the action as a private plaintiff.

Standing to sue under the UCL can be established by showing that the plaintiff sustained an economic injury because of the business’ conduct. If the plaintiff bought an item from the business, then this would be enough to meet the UCL standing requirement.

False advertising claims brought under the UCL must establish that the plaintiff sustained economic injury because the defendant company engaged in misleading advertising of goods or services. Basically, this means that the consumer needs to show that they purchased an item or service and that they did so because of a deceptive advertisement.

Strict Liability

Section 17200 of the Unfair Competition Law imposes strict liability on businesses that commit fraud, which means that it does not matter whether they intended to commit fraud. The mere fact that their actions were unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent is enough to violate the statute. Additionally, it is not a defense against a UCL claim that the company’s ad was true or accurate. That’s because the plaintiff in a UCL case merely needs to show that the ad was likely to mislead consumers.

Moreover, it is important for businesses to understand that they can be sued under the UCL even if their actions are not technically unlawful. That’s because the statute explicitly prohibits “unfair” business acts and practices.

Restitution and Damages Available in UCL Claims

There are two remedies available to plaintiffs in an Unfair Competition Law claim:

  1. Actual economic damages, which means the defendant company is ordered to pay back any money received from the consumer.
  2. An injunction ordering the defendant to stop committing the fraud.

There are no punitive damages allowed in UCL cases. This is one reason that individual consumers often join forces to file a UCL claim as a class action, which can make it harder for the defendant to avoid paying a large damages award. A knowledgeable California UCL attorney can help the plaintiffs determine if it would be better to bring a class action lawsuit.

What Is the Statute of Limitations for UCL Claims?

The statute of limitations for a UCL claim is four (4) years, with the clock starting as soon as the business commits the fraudulent act or as soon as the plaintiff discovers the fraud. The standard used in these cases is a reasonable person standard, which means that the court will ask whether a person who exercised reasonable diligence would have discovered the unlawful business act when the statute of limitations period started to run.

Consumer Fraud Defense: Answering UCL Claims

Sometimes, a consumer brings a UCL claim against a company without merit. These claims can be tricky for businesses to answer because the statute is interpreted broadly by courts, and plaintiffs are typically given wide latitude to prove their case. If you have been sued in state court for allegedly violating the Unfair Competition Law, you need to speak with a knowledgeable consumer fraud defense lawyer immediately.

Related Laws: CLRA, ARL, and FTC Act

There are a few other related statutes that California consumers should be aware of when deciding whether to file a UCL claim.

CLRA Claims

Unfair Competition Law claims are often accompanied by claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The CLRA is more limited than the UCL because the CLRA includes protections for specific actions by businesses, whereas the UCL applies broadly to business fraud. It may be in the best interests of a plaintiff to bring a claim under both statutes because the remedies are cumulative. Beyond that, only the CLRA allows for punitive damages to be imposed against the defendant. Additionally, the CLRA allows plaintiffs to recover attorney’s fees.

ARL Claims

It is also possible for California consumers to use the Unfair Competition Law to bring a private civil action against companies that violate California’s automatic renewal laws. This is significant because the California ARL does not allow for a private right of action, which means that consumers who are deceived into signing up for an auto-renewal subscription may still be able to sue for full restitution under the UCL.

Federal Laws

There are also federal laws, such as the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), that protect California consumers against business fraud and false advertising. One advantage for plaintiffs filing a UCL claim is that the state statute has broad consumer protections that go beyond the protections provided under federal law.

Keep in mind that defendants may argue that more lenient federal law should apply in a particular case instead of the stringent California state law. That’s why it is important to have a skilled Los Angeles false advertising attorney on your side throughout the case.

Contact the California Consumer Protection Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

Tauler Smith LLP is a Los Angeles law firm that represents consumers in civil litigation, including class actions based on UCL violations. Our Los Angeles consumer protection lawyers understand the nuances of the California Unfair Competition Law, and we can help you get financial restitution from a company that used fraudulent business practices. Call us today at 310-590-3927 or email us to discuss your case.

Strikethrough Price Lawsuits

Retailers Settle Strikethrough Pricing Lawsuits

/in /by

Strikethrough Price Lawsuits

In California and other states, several major retailers have settled strikethrough pricing lawsuits after being accused of violating false advertising laws. The lawsuits were filed in response to a common retail sales strategy: enticing customers to make purchases by highlighting comparison prices, which can include previous list prices that have since been reduced by the retailer or higher prices on similar items currently sold by competitors. This is especially prevalent among major retailers that advertise and sell products online. But comparison pricing is not without risks for the companies. That’s because there are both state and federal regulations of deceptive sale pricing. When a retailer violates these laws, it can lead to retail discount pricing litigation. Moreover, these lawsuits are often filed as class actions that involve many different consumers who were deceived into purchasing items because of deceptive pricing information.

To find out more about some of the major retailers that have been sued for strikethrough pricing violations, keep reading this blog.

Strikethrough Pricing in Retail Ads Can Violate California & Federal Consumer Protection Laws

Since price is often the deciding factor for consumers when the time comes to make a purchase, many retail companies use something known as compare-at pricing or strikethrough pricing. This is a sales and marketing strategy that emphasizes a product’s lower ticket price by comparing it to a higher list price or Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). Unfortunately, some retailers go too far with strikethrough pricing by offering deceptive discounts that mislead customers. Basically, the company mentions an inflated original price in an ad so that the “for sale” price appears greater by comparison.

What happens when a business misrepresents a sales price? For example, a company might offer a product at a perpetual sale price, meaning that it’s just a regular price that the company is lying about and passing off as a discounted price. Or a retail store might carelessly compare their price to another store’s price without acknowledging that the item offered at the other store is substantially different. It’s also possible that a business will use false reference pricing to compare their current price to a much higher price from many months or even years earlier. These kinds of fraudulent marketing and advertising practices may be unlawful violations of both California state and federal laws governing false advertising, consumer fraud, and unfair competition.

California Law

Under California’s comparison pricing law, retail companies that use reference prices when advertising or marketing their merchandise must follow strict guidelines. Most importantly, the original full price mentioned in the ad must be legitimate. If the item was never offered for sale at the higher price, or if it was only offered at that price for a short period of time, consumers may be able to file a lawsuit against the company for false advertising.

When a company cites a comparison price in an advertisement, they must be prepared to show that it was the prevailing market price within the three-month window preceding the publication of the ad. Absent that, the company must “clearly and conspicuously” indicate the date when the former price was in effect. Companies that fail to do either of these things may face consumer litigation in the form of a false advertising claim filed in California court.

Federal Law

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has a mission of enforcing federal consumer protection laws. To this end, the FTC has issued guidelines that strictly regulate former pricing. These promotional pricing guidelines stipulate that companies citing a former price in their ads or promotional materials must use an “actual, bona fide price” that was offered to the general public “on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time.”

Major Retailers Named as Defendants in Comparison Pricing Lawsuits

Comparison pricing is a sales strategy used by retailers in a lot of different consumer categories:

  • Clothing & Department Stores: Dillard’s, JCPenney, Kmart, Kohls, Macy’s, Marshalls, Nordstrom, Ross Stores, Sears, Target, TJ Maxx
  • Auto Parts: Advance Auto Parts, AutoZone, Carquest, NAPA Auto Parts, O’Reilly Auto Parts, Pep Boys
  • Tools & Home Improvement: Ace Hardware, Harbor Freight Tools, The Home Depot, Lowe’s, True Value Hardware
  • Sporting Goods: Bass Pro Shops, Champs Sports, Dick’s Sporting Equipment, REI
  • Home & Kitchen Supplies: Bed Bath & Beyond, Best Buy, The Home Depot
  • Alcohol & Wine: BevMo, Total Wine & More

Calvin Klein, The Children’s Place, Dressbarn, Eddie Bauer, JCPenney, Pier 1 Imports, Shutterfly, and Zales are just some of the major retailers that have been named as defendants in nationwide class action lawsuits alleging false reference pricing. Other major retailers have been ordered to pay large judgments in California comparison pricing cases. For instance, a court ordered Overstock.com to pay almost $7 million when state regulators filed suit against the internet retailer.

Amazon Settles California Deceptive Pricing Lawsuit for $2 Million

California district attorneys also filed a complaint against Amazon for using unlawful comparison prices when advertising products. The case was brought by district attorney’s offices in six California counties: Alameda, Riverside, San Diego, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo.

The complaint, which was filed in San Diego Superior Court, alleged that the reference prices mentioned by Amazon in their ads did not match the prevailing market prices for the items being sold. The Amazon ads distinguished former prices from current prices by stating “Was” or “List” next to the higher price. Many of the online ads also had strikethrough lines across the former price, making it clear to consumers that the newer “sale” prices were lower. But California prosecutors said that these comparison prices were misleading because there was no evidence to suggest that they were real prices.

Shortly after the legal complaint was filed, Amazon agreed to settle the deceptive advertising case for approximately $2 million. This included civil penalties and restitution to the consumers who purchased products because of the misleading price listings. The court also ordered Amazon to make significant changes to its pricing disclosures in online ads. (E.g., including hyperlinks on the website that clearly define key terms such as “Was” and “List” when used with prices.)

Contact the California False Advertising Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Tauler Smith LLP is a California law firm that represents consumers in false advertising cases throughout the United States. Call 310-590-3927 or send an email to find out if you might have a legal claim against a retailer for using deceptive comparison prices in product advertisements.

Deceptive Pricing Class Action

California Deceptive Pricing Class Action Lawsuits

/in /by

Deceptive Pricing Class Action

It has become increasingly common for consumers to join California deceptive pricing class action lawsuits against retailers that market and sell products with deceptive pricing information. California’s false advertising law is often used as the basis for consumer class action litigation concerning false reference pricing because the state law is favorable to consumers. In recent years, there have been a number of class action suits filed in state court as consumers sued major retailers because of misleading pricing. Some of these cases settled, with the retail company agreeing to change their sales policies and paying out large settlement amounts to consumers. If you bought an item because of a comparison price in an advertisement, the Los Angeles consumer protection attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP can help you.

Keep reading this blog to learn more about California consumer class action lawsuits alleging deceptive pricing by retailers.

Reference Pricing Is a Tool Used by Retailers to Generate Sales

A comparison price, reference price, or strikethrough price might refer to the full price at which the retailer previously sold the product, the list price at which another seller currently offers the product, or the Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of the product. Retail companies often rely on reference pricing as a marketing strategy to entice customers to make purchases by emphasizing that the ticket price represents a significant discount over full price. The idea is that the customer will see a sales price next to a higher regular price and be more likely to buy the item because it is on sale. This is commonly known as comparison pricing or strikethrough pricing (because the original price may have a line through it), and it can be an effective tool to increase sales revenues.

The general idea behind comparison pricing laws regulating these advertising strategies is that retailers should be transparent about the pricing of their products, including older prices that have been discounted for current sales. Common examples of unlawful comparison pricing include the following:

  • The retail company includes a former price in an advertisement even though the item was never offered at that price.
  • The company mentions a former price that was used in the distant past and is therefore no longer relevant. (Under the law, this may be allowed if the ad discloses when the former price was used.)
  • The retailer references a former price that was not used in the regular course of business.
  • The company uses a former price that may have been available to some customers but that was not openly offered to the public.
  • The retail company artificially inflates the initial price of an item just so that they can later reduce the price and misleadingly call it a “sale.”

Jurisdiction in Deceptive Pricing Class Action Lawsuits

The jurisdiction matters a great deal when bringing consumer litigation. For example, California’s law is more plaintiff-friendly than other states, with California courts often finding in favor of plaintiffs who file legal claims alleging false reference pricing. There is also a reduced standard for establishing economic injury in California cases, since the plaintiff merely needs to show that the former pricing representations were misleading and that the false information is what prompted the purchase.

It is also possible for consumers to file a federal comparison pricing claim. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines prohibit retailers from deceptive sale pricing that uses inflated former prices as a point of comparison. For example, companies are not allowed to artificially inflate the price of a product for a short period of time just so that they can later reduce the price and then claim that the product is “on sale.” In false advertising and unfair competition cases, a federal court may look to the intent of the business to determine whether the initial price was set high solely for the purpose of later offering a large discount. Evidence of this unlawful intent could be that the retailer immediately reduced the inflated price and did not maintain it for a reasonable amount of time.

Winning Your California Comparison Pricing Class Action

False advertising claims involving deceptive pricing information are often filed as class action lawsuits in California. That’s because the plaintiffs are typically consumers who made a single purchase of a discounted retail item. The good news is that when you join other consumers in a comparison price class action, you are more likely to get the benefit of experienced legal counsel that can help you and all the other plaintiffs get reimbursed for the difference in value from your purchase, as well as statutory damages.

Certifying the Class

A knowledgeable California consumer fraud lawyer can make sure that you meet the requirements of a class action suit, which include establishing commonality among all plaintiffs through similar questions of fact and law. For example, your attorney may be able to get the class of plaintiffs certified by showing that all class members were victimized by the retailer’s sales price misrepresentations and that the same deceptive advertisement with false former prices was used in all instances.

In a California comparison pricing class action, it might also be easier for additional members of the class to gain standing to sue. That’s because at least one California appellate court held, in Branca v. Nordstrom, Inc., that the class members in retail pricing cases do not necessarily need to have purchased the same retail items as the named plaintiff. Rather, all that is needed for the additional individuals to join the class action suit is proof that they purchased items advertised with a comparison price.

The Discovery Process

One major advantage to filing a class action consumer lawsuit in retail discount pricing litigation is that the defendant will be subject to discovery during the class certification process, and discovery could produce significant evidence of wrongdoing. In order to certify the class, the plaintiffs’ attorney must show that there are common questions of law or fact among the plaintiffs and that those common questions predominate over any individual issues in the case. Since the discovery process allows the plaintiffs’ attorney to request documents from the defendant, this is an opportunity to potentially press the retailer for emails, price reports, and other internal documents that the retailer might not want exposed.

Depending on the type of information that is turned over during discovery, the plaintiffs may have strong evidence that the retailer violated consumer protection laws and intentionally misled consumers with deceptive comparison prices.

Damages & Financial Compensation Available in California Strikethrough Pricing Cases

The damages that might be available to plaintiffs in California strikethrough price cases include both compensatory damages and statutory damages. This gives consumers a lot of leverage against a retail company that violates state or federal promotional pricing guidelines by using fraudulent advertising practices. Moreover, when the retailer engaged in willful violations of the law, they may be subject to treble damages that can triple the compensatory damages available in the case.

Contact the California Consumer Class Action Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Tauler Smith is a Los Angeles law firm that represents plaintiffs in consumer class action litigation in California and across the U.S. If you bought a retail item because the retailer used deceptive advertising, you should contact our legal team today.

Call 310-590-3927 or email us to discuss your eligibility to join a consumer class action lawsuit.

Federal Law on False Reference Pricing

Federal Law on False Reference Pricing

/in /by

Federal Law on False Reference Pricing

A lot of major retailers have an online presence these days with company websites and advertisements on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. The explosion in online sales has also led to competition between traditional retailers and e-commerce businesses that are all fighting for the same internet-savvy customers. Sometimes, those companies become too aggressive and employ fraudulent marketing practices, such as using deceptive pricing information in ads. This type of advertising violates the federal law on false reference pricing. If you purchased a product because of a comparison price in an advertisement, the experienced consumer protection lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP can help you file a lawsuit against the retailer and get financial compensation.

For more information about federal laws on deceptive pricing by retailers, keep reading.

Why Do Retail Companies Use Comparison Pricing in Advertisements?

It’s a simple fact that retail businesses often rely on sales to get customers to make purchases. That’s because sales and discounts on an item’s full price can be attention-grabbers in promotional materials and advertisements, particularly when the customer believes that they are getting a once-in-a-lifetime bargain or deal. One of the strategies that retailers utilize in their sales ads is to include strikethrough pricing or comparison pricing. This is when the business provides two prices that the customer can compare to each other: a former list price or MSRP and a reduced current price. The original price usually has a line through the text to differentiate it from the new lower price, and the price with the line through it is known as the strikethrough price.

Sometimes, consumers feel pressured to buy an item because they are worried that the sale won’t last. But when the discount wasn’t real to begin with because the “full price” was inflated, the consumer ends up being tricked into making a purchase. A retail company that violates comparison pricing laws by using deceptive advertising is subject to government investigations, retail discount pricing litigation, and significant monetary penalties. They may also be named as the defendant in a consumer class action lawsuit, where consumers could be eligible for both statutory damages and actual monetary damages. In fact, a number of consumer class action lawsuits alleging deceptive sale pricing have been filed against major retail companies in California and other states. Some of these cases concluded with judgments in favor of the plaintiffs, while others concluded with pre-trial settlements totaling tens of millions of dollars.

FTC Guides Against Deceptive Pricing

The federal government has laws against unfair competition, false advertising, and false reference pricing. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) specifically regulates sales advertisements for retail companies involved in interstate commerce, which applies to most businesses that sell products online. The reason behind the law is that companies have been caught using misleading prices to deceive customers. For example, a retailer might frame their current price as a “sale price” even though it is the same as a regular price. This can be done by including a “compare at” or reference price in the advertisement.

The FTC gets its authority to investigate allegations of consumer fraud from the Federal Trade Commission Act, which includes the FTC Guides Against Deceptive Pricing. These promotional pricing guidelines set limits on when companies can use former price comparisons in advertisements. Generally speaking, any former price mentioned in an advertisement or promotion must have been offered honestly and in good faith. Other, more specific requirements of the FTC guidelines include the following:

  • The original higher price referenced in the ad needs to have been openly and actively offered for sale.
  • The item should have been available at the former price during the regular course of business.
  • The item needs to have been available at the former price recently, not in the distant past.
  • The former price must have been offered for a reasonably substantial period of time before being reduced.

Federal Law vs. California Law on False Reference Pricing

California’s law on false reference pricing is broader in scope than the federal law, which is why Los Angeles consumer protection lawyers often file these lawsuits in state court rather than U.S. district court. For instance, the federal guidelines are less clear than the California false advertising law when it comes to specifying timeframes for establishing the prevailing market price. The FTC guidelines state that companies must maintain a price for a reasonable length of time before reducing it; otherwise, the initial price may be considered a false reference price. Similarly, how long ago can the company go back to reference a former price? What is considered “reasonable” under these circumstances? Federal law is unclear on this, but the California comparison pricing law is explicit: any prices used during the previous 90 days may be allowed.

Although the federal law on comparison pricing isn’t as robust as the California law, it still imposes significant requirements on businesses that make former pricing representations in their advertising.

Winning Your Federal Comparison Pricing Lawsuit

When deciding whether you should take legal action against a company that engaged in sales price misrepresentation, you need to speak with an experienced consumer fraud attorney who understands the nuances of federal consumer protection laws. Depending on the facts of your case, it may be possible for the retailer to argue in court that you did not suffer any economic harm when you made the purchase because you ended up with a product that you wanted at the price that you expected to pay. The retailer’s argument would be that regardless of their false comparison pricing claims in the ad, you should not be entitled to financial compensation or damages.

A knowledgeable consumer protection attorney can help you prove the required elements of your claim, which includes showing that you relied on the false reference pricing and made the purchase because of the retailer’s misleading statements.

Contact the California False Advertising Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

The California false advertising attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP represent plaintiffs in consumer litigation throughout the United States. If you purchased a product online or in a retail store because of a comparison price mentioned in an advertisement, you may be able to file a lawsuit and get financial compensation.

Call or email us today to schedule a free consultation.

California Automatic Renewal Law

California’s Automatic Renewal Law

/in /by

California Automatic Renewal LawThe explosion of the internet and e-commerce has led many businesses to offer their products and services through online subscription services. This has made it easier for consumers to quickly make purchases from their phone or computer, and it has also made it easier for companies to lock customers into subscriptions that renew automatically. These auto-renewal plans become problematic when companies use them to take advantage of customers who might not realize what they are signing up for. California’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) was a direct response to this problem, with state lawmakers codifying strong protections for consumers in these situations that go even further than federal laws on recurring contracts. The California ARL specifically requires businesses to disclose all relevant subscription terms to customers, get consent from the customers before charging their credit cards, and provide customers with a way to easily cancel the contract.

To learn more about the California automatic renewal law, keep reading.

What Requirements Does California’s ARL Impose on Businesses?

Automatic renewal subscriptions affecting California consumers are governed by the state’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), which is set forth in Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17600. The California ARL requires companies to clearly and conspicuously explain “automatic renewal offer terms.” State legislators passed the law for the purpose of stopping companies from continually charging consumer credit or debit cards without the consumers’ explicit consent for ongoing shipments of products or ongoing provision of services.

When a business violates the ARL by failing to properly disclose information about an auto-renewal offer, it may be possible for the customer to file a consumer fraud lawsuit and seek financial compensation from the business. If you have been billed for an automatically renewing subscription that you did not want to be enrolled in, your first step should be to speak with a California false advertising lawyer.

What Information Must Be Disclosed in California Auto-Renewal Offers?

California’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) is among the most consumer-friendly in the entire country, with other states modeling their own ARLs after it. In fact, federal agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are now revising their own recurring contract rules to work in tandem with California’s auto-renewal law.

The California ARL requires companies to disclose the following information before a customer enrolls in an automatic subscription program:

  1. That the subscription will continue until the consumer cancels.
  2. A description of the policy for canceling the subscription.
  3. Any recurring charges that will be charged to the consumer’s credit card, debit card, or bank account as part of the automatic renewal plan, as well as whether the amount of the charge may change and how often the consumer will be billed.
  4. The length of the automatic renewal term. (If the service is continuous, this must also be disclosed.)
  5. Any minimum purchase obligation.

“Clear and Conspicuous” Disclosures Required Under California’s ARL

Importantly, section 17602 of the California ARL requires that the automatic renewal offer terms must be presented to the consumer both before the purchasing contract is fulfilled and after enrollment in the form of an email or other post-sale acknowledgement. There can be no concealing of the auto-renewal offer at any point in the process. Moreover, there can be no attempts by the company to thwart or frustrate a customer’s attempts to cancel the subscription. That’s because the ARL explicitly requires businesses to provide a “cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use mechanism for cancelation.”

Additionally, those disclosures must be plainly visible and obvious to the customer. In fact, there are strict guidelines for the manner in which the information is presented. For example, the terms of the automatic subscription service must be in “visual proximity” to the request for consent to the offer. Those terms must also be presented “clearly and conspicuously” so that they can be distinguished from the rest of the offer. This means that the text of the auto-renewal offer should be:

  • In larger type than the surrounding text.
  • In contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size.
  • Set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks in a manner that clearly calls attention to the language.

Remedies Available Under California’s Auto-Renewal Law

What happens when a company violates the California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) by failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose the terms and conditions of a subscription service? The answer to this question depends on the facts and circumstances of your particular case, which is why it’s important for you to speak with a Los Angeles false advertising attorney who has knowledge of both state and federal automatic renewal laws, as well as other applicable California consumer protection laws like the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and the far-reaching Unfair Competition Law (UCL). An experienced attorney may be able to force the company to stop its misleading sale and advertisement of services, in addition to helping you get full restitution of any expenses you’ve already incurred. In some cases, you may also be entitled to additional financial compensation for your losses or harm suffered.

Call the Los Angeles False Advertising Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Tauler Smith LLP is a Los Angeles law firm that focuses on consumer fraud litigation, including violations of the California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL). Our false advertising lawyers represent plaintiffs in lawsuits filed against companies that misrepresent or fail to disclose the terms of their monthly subscription contracts. Call 310-590-3927 or email us to schedule a free consultation.