A new class action lawsuit is accusing Google of making it too confusing for customers to cancel trial subscriptions to YouTube, which automatically revert to an auto-renewal at the end of the trial, allowing Google allegedly to deduct fees improperly from subscribers' accounts.
Richard Sims, on behalf of himself and others, filed a new class action lawsuit against Google LLC, and YouTube on February 1 in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The suit is alleging multiple violations, including California’s False Advertising Law (FAL), Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), as well as negligent misrepresentation and fraud. Sims claims he was charged for a YouTube subscription through auto-renewal he claims he did not authorize and for making the cancellation procedure too confusing.
In January 2022, Sims agreed to a free trial of YouTube Premium on the YouTube site. Sims claims he provided his credit card information as required during the subscription process, but was allegedly not provided with the terms or given the opportunity to consent to any terms associated with the subscription. He further stated he was not aware the program would automatically convert to a paid monthly subscription at the end of the trial period and debit his card.
Although Sims stated he received an acknowledgment email with a receipt for his purchase, he contends that it, too, failed to disclose a toll-free telephone number or describe another way to cancel, making it unnecessarily confusing for consumers to cancel their YouTube subscriptions.
According to the complaint, approximately one month after Sims first signed up for his YouTube subscription, his free trial expired and was allegedly converted to a YouTube Music paid subscription debiting $11.99, the full monthly subscription rate, and continued to do so until December 2022 when he was eventually able to cancel his subscription.
The suit contends that this process was unreasonably confusing. YouTube is accused of violating the requirements of the ARL, enacted to “end the practice of ongoing charging of consumer credit or debit cards or third-party payment accounts without the consumers’ explicit consent...” by their alleged failure to provide the required disclosure to California consumers.
In his complaint, Sims assumes any other reasonable person would also be misled by YouTube's allegedly misleading statements and omissions. The suit is claiming this violates UCL which prohibits unfair competition of any kind through "...unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent (practices)..or misleading advertising...". He asserts that, had he been able to read and review the auto renewal terms prior to purchase, he would have not subscribed to YouTube Music in the first place.
Sims stated in court documents that the true facts of the service were not as YouTube promoted; that YouTube intentionally concealed important information about billing, cancellation and payment/renewal terms. In effect, Sims contends he did not get what YouTube allegedly promoted and claims to be a victim of fraud.
Plaintiffs are seeking a trial by jury, actual, compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, plus court costs and legal fees.
Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Neal J. Deckant, Julia K. Venditti, and Frederick J. Klorczyk III, of the firm of Bursor and Fisher, of Walnut Creek, California, and New York.