Linda Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Time Inc., Meredith Corp., and Does 1-100 inclusive
Published: May 1, 2020 | Result Date: Mar. 13, 2020 | Filing Date: Jun. 10, 2019 |Case number: 8:19-cv-01153 Bench Decision – Dismissal
Judge
Court
CD CA
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Michael J. Trotter
(Carroll, Kelly, Trotter & Franzen)
David P. Pruett
(Carroll, Kelly, Trotter, Franzen, McKenna & Peabody)
Defendant
Dante A. Marinucci
(Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Marcus S. McCutcheon
(Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Kyle T. Cutts
(Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Michael K. Farrell
(Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Facts
Plaintiffs Linda Hall, and other class members, brought a class action suit against defendants Time Inc. and Meredith Corp. in relation to its automatic subscription renewal process.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs alleged defendants violated California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code section 17200, based on defendants' violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law, and committed unlawful conversion. Defendant Time was a subsidiary of Meredith Corp. that sold magazines all over the country. However, once a customer subscribed to Time magazine, their membership automatically renewed as part of Time's automatic renewal program, and the customer was subsequently charged. In 2017, Hall claimed, she received an Instagram that offered her a subscription to People Magazine and she subscribed, but in 2018 Time debited plaintiff's account for $67.50 through its computerized program.
Plaintiffs contended defendants made automatic renewals and continued to offer services to consumers in California and in doing so, violated the automatic renewal law. Plaintiffs contended defendants failed to clearly present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms before it obtained consumers' consent before they subscribed or completed a purchase agreement. Plaintiffs also contended defendants unlawfully charged its subscribers credit cards, debit cards, or third party accounts without having obtained the account holders affirmative consent. Plaintiffs additionally contended defendants failed to provide online purchasers with the ability to terminate the purchases online.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the contentions and further contended plaintiffs could have canceled at any time as indicated when defendants sent out notices to its customers.
Result
The case was dismissed with prejudice.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390