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.

Consumer Law
Unfair Competition
Violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act

Sarah Robbins and Tiffany Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Plushcare Inc., Plushcare of California Inc., A.P.C.

Published: Nov. 10, 2023 | Result Date: Jul. 19, 2023 | Filing Date: May 7, 2021 |

Case number: 3:21-cv-03444-MMC Settlement –  $3,700,000

Judge

Maxine M. Chesney

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Ronald A. Marron
(Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC)

Alexis M. Wood
(Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC)

Kas L. Gallucci
(Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC)


Defendant

Tyler G. Newby
(Fenwick & West LLP)

Kimberly I. Culp Cloyd
(Fenwick & West LLP)

Justin A. Stacy
(Fenwick & West LLP)

Ethan M. Thomas
(Fenwick & West LLP)


Facts

PlushCare is a service that connects consumers to a doctor via an online video visit. Patients book an appointment on plushcare.com or through PlushCare's app and after inputting their banking information may then virtually visit the doctor. Sarah Robbins, who had booked an appointment with a PlushCare doctor and obtained services, filed suit against PlushCare for violations of several consumer protection laws, including the Automatic Renewal Law.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant illegally charged monthly or yearly subscription service fees without consumers' authorization, knowledge or consent. Without disclosing the terms of their subscription services, defendant would enroll consumers into membership plans that automatically renewed indefinitely without obtaining consumers' express consent or written authorization. Moreover, defendant failed to disclose its automatic renewal terms nor did it provide a simple means for cancellation.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied the allegations and any wrongdoing, asserting that its autorenewal practices were lawful at all times.

Result

The case settled for $3.7 million, allowing customers to receive payment of an estimated average of $65 to $130, depending on the number of submitted claims. Though defendant was not legally obligated to make certain changes to its website, it did agree as part of the settlement and to improve user experience, to more clearly define its autorenewal practices, and obtain affirmative consent to the automatic renewal terms on its website.


#141815

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

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