Another Plaintiff Added to Fraud Complaint vs. X Over Automatic Renewal Charges
Santa Monica resident Marlon Siguenza joined plaintiff Daniel Kissick’s October fraud lawsuit against X (see 2311020028), said the first amended complaint (FAC) Friday (docket 23-610081) in San Francisco County Superior Court. The complaint alleges violations of California's Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) under its Business and Professional Code and its Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
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.
Kissick’s suit alleges subscriptions to X Premium, formerly Twitter Blue, sold to California consumers violate the ARL. Kissick, who resides in Whittier, California, was enrolled in X Premium Autorenewal, called Twitter Blue prior to X’s rebranding, in June, paying $9.99 monthly, said the complaint. X “failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose” to Kissick the X Premium auto-renewal 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 automatic renewal, it said.
Siguenza was subject to the “same pattern of violations” as Kissick, said the FAC. In December 2022, Siguenza was enrolled in a monthly X Premium subscription, called Twitter Blue at the time, and paid an initial fee to join. Twitter “failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose” to Siguenza all of the X Premium auto-renewal terms “in visual proximity to his initial enrollment,” it said.
Twitter’s confirmation email “failed to provide him with the complete terms of the automatic renewal offer, including that Siguenza’s purchase would automatically renew every month unless and until he canceled, the FAC said. The confirmation email also didn’t include a description of Twitter’s cancellation policy or information on how Siguenza could cancel the auto-renewal, it said. X then charged Siguenza for the auto-renewal “without his affirmative consent,” it said.
When Siguenza made his initial purchase of X Premium in December 2022, he was “entirely unaware” that Twitter enrolled him in an automatic renewal program that would renew each month unless and until he canceled, said the FAC. The defendant charged Siguenza for X Premium for 24 months, without his knowledge or affirmative consent to the automatic renewal, it said. The monthly fees were a surprise to Siguenza, who, until he discovered the charges, “had believed that his Premium purchase “was a single transaction that would not automatically renew.”
Had Siguenza received clear and conspicuous disclosures “in visual proximity” to Twitter’s request for purchases, as required under the ARL, at the time of initial purchase, he would not have consented to his initial purchase of X Premium, said the FAC. Siguenza was injured and incurred an out-of-pocket loss, it said. Siguenza seeks “public injunctive relief on behalf of the general public in California,” said the FAC. He also seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring X to bring its X Premium Autorenewal enrollment process into ARL compliance, plus attorneys’ fees and costs.