Plaintiff Sues Software Editing Firm for Violating Calif. Automatic Renewal Law
Wondershare Software violated California’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) by failing to present its subscription terms in a clear and conspicuous manner, alleged a fraud class action Friday (docket 2:24-cv-01314) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles.
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.
Plaintiff Jessica Blum, a Los Angeles resident, subscribed to Wondershare’s Filmora video editing software, and without giving “clear and conspicuous notice of the renewal terms, length, and cancellation policy,” Wondershare enrolled Blum in an automatic renewal service that charged her monthly from November 2022 to March 2023, the complaint said. If Blum had known she was being enrolled in an automatic renewal service, she would not have subscribed to the Filmora product, it said.
Blum suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result of Wondershare’s “misleading, false, unfair, and deceptive practices,” the complaint said. The complaint names numerous Chinese corporations that are part of the same corporate family of companies.
The ARL makes it illegal for companies to charge consumers for automatically renewing subscriptions or services unless the company meets strict disclosure requirements, pre- and post-purchase, the complaint said. Automatic renewal offer terms must be presented in a “clear and conspicuous manner before the subscription or purchasing agreement is fulfilled and in visual proximity…to the request for consent to the offer,” it said. That includes larger type than the surrounding text or a contrasting type, font or color, it said.
On the Filmora site, users aren't presented with terms of service until the “Pay Now” screen, the complaint said. Wondershare doesn’t present clearly or conspicuously all requisite auto-renewal terms to subscribers prior to enrollment, as required, and terms are not rendered in larger type or contrasting font or color, it said. Instead, terms are presented “in small script,” in a color similar to the background of the page. Terms are not presented, and users have to follow a hyperlink to find them.
Wondershare doesn’t clarify to consumers that they are enrolling in an automatically recurring subscription, the complaint said. The defendant “only vaguely states that the offer costs '$59.99/year.'” Though it provides some language about recurring billing regarding an “Effects & Plugins” charge, Wondershare fails to do so for the Filmora subscription plan, it said. Wondershare also doesn’t send a post-transaction acknowledgment giving terms, cancellation policy or cancellation method in violation of the California Business & Professional Code, it said.
Blum’s claims include violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law; the Electronic Funds Transfer Act; and quasi contract/unjust enrichment/restitution. She seeks an order prohibiting Wondershare from engaging in the unlawful acts described; restitutionary disgorgement of all profits and unjust enrichment that Wondershare obtained from him and the proposed class; economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, treble and punitive damages; attorneys’ fees and expenses; and pre- and post-judgment interest.