Time’s Magazine Subscriptions
Allegations: Offering free or discounted magazines for a specific period of time without adequately disclosing that consumers are enrolled in a program that automatically renews subscriptions
June 2019: A state court judge granted final approval of the settlement agreement.
March 2019: A state court judge granted preliminary approval of a proposed settlement agreement. According to its terms, class members may receive a pro rata share of the settlement fund after other expenses – including attorneys’ fees, service payments, litigation expenses, and settlement administration expenses – are paid. In addition, the company agreed, for a period of two years, to make the text of the terms of automatic renewal or continuous service magazine subscriptions larger or in a different font or color than surrounding text, among other things. A final fairness hearing is scheduled for June 14, 2019.
January 2019: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint similarly alleging that the company fails to adequately disclose the terms and conditions of its automatic renewal and continuous service agreements resulting in consumers being charged without their consent. (Case No. 37-2018-00032240, California State Court – San Diego)
October 2018: This case was remanded back to state court.
August 2018: This case was transferred to federal court. (Cruz et al v. Synapse Group, Inc. and SynapseConnect, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-1775, S. D. CA.)
June 2018: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Synapse Group and SynapseConnect for allegedly misleadingly representing that consumers who fill out an online survey will receive a monetary award when, according to the plaintiffs, the reward is merely an opportunity to order magazines for a specific period of time. In addition, plaintiffs claim that the companies fail to adequately disclose that they automatically renew these subscriptions at the end of the term resulting in consumers being charged without their consent and that the companies make it difficult for consumers to cancel subscriptions and get a refund. (Cruz et al v. Syanpse Group, Inc. and SynapseConnect, Inc., Case No. 2018-00032240, California State Court – San Diego)
For more of TINA.org’s coverage of negative option offers, click here.
Lawsuits take aim at so-called non-disparagement clauses.
Beyoncé can break the internet. But can she break Verizon?
The consumer advocacy organization truthinadvertising.org (TINA.org) has published the results of a yearslong investigation into the multilevel marketing (MLM) industry that found widespread use of deceptive income claims to promote…
Why you may find it hard to “do your slice.”
TINA.org investigation finds 98% of MLMs using misleading income claims.