DreamBrands Inc. has been hit with a class action lawsuit that accuses the company of failing to present its automatic renewal offer terms in a clear and conspicuous manner, and that it failed to obtain consumers’ affirmative consent before charging their credit and debit cards.
The DreamBrands class action lawsuit was filed on Jan. 19 by plaintiff Kyle Johnson, who claims DreamBrands violated California law by failing to adequately present the terms of its automatic renewal policy to consumers before they completed a purchase.
The DreamBrands automatic renewal class action lawsuit points to a California statute that makes it unlawful for businesses to make automatic renewal or continuous service offers to consumers without making the terms of the offer clear and conspicuous prior to the completion of the purchase, without obtaining the affirmative consent of the consumers and without providing information about the cancellation policy.
“The Legislature’s stated intent for this Article was to end the practice of ongoing charges to consumers’ Payment Methods without consumers’ explicit consent for ongoing shipments of a product or ongoing deliveries of service,” the DreamBrands class action lawsuit says.
According to the DreamBrands class action lawsuit, DreamBrands sells subscriptions for energy, physical performance and joint relief supplements that may be purchased on its website for delivery on a monthly basis. However, Johnson assets that the website does not contain automatic renewal terms or continuous service offer terms as required by California law.
“Specifically, while the webpages do reference the ability to cancel the subscription and a 60-day return policy, that information is not set forth on the page where the prospective subscriber is invited to complete the transaction and proceed with purchase of the subscription,” Johnson says in the DreamBrands class action lawsuit. Thus, he continues, the webpages do not provide the terms for the automatic renewal or continuous service offers in visual proximity to the request for consent to the offer. This failure is a violation of California law, Johnson alleges.
“What is more, no specific mechanism for cancellation is provided, and a 60-day return policy is not the same thing as a subscription cancellation policy,” the DreamBands class action lawsuit alleges.
Johnson filed the DreamBrands class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other Californians who purchased subscriptions for any products from DreamBrands in response to an offer constituting an “Automatic Renewal” as defined by California law.
The automatic renewal class action lawsuit also accuses DreamBrands of violating the Unfair Competition Law because it “unlawfully obtained property and money belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members in the form of payments made for subscription agreements,” and therefore Class Members are allegedly entitled to restitution.
Johnson is represented by Mei-Ying Imanaka of Nicholas & Tomasevic LLP.
The DreamBrands Automatic Renewal Class Action Lawsuit is Kyle Johnson v. DreamBrands Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00119, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2016 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
The post DreamBrands Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Automatic Renewal Policy appeared first on Top Class Actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment