This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Business Law
Unfair Competition
Conversion

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

Cormac J. Carney

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.


#134601

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390