Audible’s Enrollment, Cancellation Practices Violate Calif. Law, Says Class Action
Audible removed to U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle a May 26 class action filed in Washington Superior Court for King County in which California plaintiffs Renee Viveros of Palm Dale and Christine Bias of La Habra allege…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Audible violated California’s Consumer’s Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, said its notice of removal Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-00925). They allege Audible unlawfully charged them on a recurring basis for monthly subscriptions to Audible’s online services, it said. They also assert common law claims of conversion and unjust enrichment, it said. Audible denies Viveros and Bias are entitled to any relief, it said. When consumers sign up for an Audible subscription, Audible enrolls them in an automatically renewing subscription on a monthly or yearly basis, resulting in automatic charges to a credit or debit card, said the complaint. Under California’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), Audible “is obligated to provide clear and conspicuous disclosures about its auto-renewal practices and subscription terms,” and must also obtain “affirmative consent” to the auto-renewal scheme before enrolling Californians, it said. The ARL also requires it be easy to cancel, it said. If a business fails to obtain the necessary authorizations at the time of enrollment, “all services provided are deemed to be unconditional free gifts under the ARL,” it said. Audible’s enrollment and cancellation practices fail to comply with the ARL, the complaint said.