Twitter Blue User Sues X Over Violation of Calif. Automatic Renewal Law
Subscriptions to X Premium, formerly Twitter Blue, sold to California consumers violate the state’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), alleged a complaint Tuesday (docket CGC 23-610081) in California Superior Court for San Francisco County.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The X platform, formerly known as Twitter, doesn’t provide the complete X Premium autorenewal offer terms, as defined under the ARL, “clearly and conspicuously” and in “visual proximity” to its request for consent to the X Premium autorenewal before the purchase is fulfilled, the complaint said. It doesn’t obtain affirmative consent of its customers before charging their billing information, provide a post-purchase acknowledgment with complete X Premium auto renewal offer terms, a description of the company’s cancellation policy or an explanation of how to cancel a X Premium auto renewal, it said.
Plaintiff Daniel Kissick of Whittier, California, was enrolled in an X Premium auto renewal -- Twitter Blue prior to X’s rebranding -- in June, when he paid an initial $9.99 for the monthly subscription, the complaint said. X “failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose” to Kissick the X Premium autorenewal offer terms “in visual proximity to his initial enrollment” into the program, it said. X then charged Kissick for the auto renewal without his consent, it said.
After Kissick completed his initial order, he received a confirmation email from X, but it didn’t include complete terms, including that X Premium would automatically renew every month unless and until he canceled, said the complaint. The email didn’t provide a description of the cancellation policy or information about how the plaintiff could cancel X Premium’s auto renewal, it said.
X charged Kissick for the auto renewal for two months, $19.98, without his affirmative consent to the recurring charges, said the complaint. The monthly fees that X charged “came as a complete surprise” to him because until he discovered the charges, Kissick believed his X Premium purchase was a single transaction that would not automatically renew beyond his initial transaction.
The plaintiff didn’t know or expect that his initial X Premium transaction would convert into an automatic renewal in which he would continue to be charged on a recurring monthly basis because X “failed to provide the pre-purchase disclosures required by the ARL,” said the complaint. He canceled the X Premium account in August.
Kissick wouldn't have bought his X Premium plan had he known that the purchase was an automatic renewal agreement, said the complaint. As a result of X’s conduct, Kissick “was injured and incurred out-of-pocket loss of at least $19.98 in total.”
Kissick claims violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. He seeks an injunction requiring X to bring its X Premium auto renewal enrollment process into ARL compliance “for the benefit of the general public of California,” plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The plaintiff seeks public declaratory and public injunctive relief in this lawsuit; he reserves his right to pursue a refund for X's "unlawful charges" in arbitration.