Time Magazine Affiliate Wants Auto-Renewal Class Action Dismissed

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Leading magazine marketer Synapse Group is asking a California federal court to toss a proposed class action lawsuit claiming they failed to adequately inform customers of the automatic renewal terms for their magazine subscriptions.

Synapse, whose parent company is Time Inc., filed a motion to dismiss Friday, arguing that plaintiffs Shannon Dale Price and Cheryl Edgemon’s claims are “baseless” since it was prominently, legally, and sufficiently disclosed on the subscription webpage that “all selections come with automatic renewal features.”

“When obtaining their subscriptions Plaintiffs were provided prominent and easy to understand informing them that (1) their subscription will continue until cancelled, (2) their account will be charged automatically for successive terms; and (3) the applicable cancellation policy,” Synapse’s dismissal bid states.

Furthermore, Synapse asserts that the plaintiffs had to click on a “complete” button immediately underneath these terms to assent to them and were also sent a notice in the mail before they incurred any charges for the second term of their magazine subscriptions.

Price and Edgemon brought the proposed class action lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court in May which was later removed to federal court in June, claiming Synapse automatically charged their credit cards without their authorization for subscription renewals.

These automatic renewal charges were also at a substantially higher price, according to the complaint.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege the magazine subscription agent violated California law for failing to adequately disclose that magazine subscriptions they sold automatically renewed.

In Dec. 2010, California enacted its Auto-Renewal Law (ARL) in an effort to end the practice of ongoing charging of consumers, without their explicit consent, for continuing services or products—such as online music and paper magazine subscriptions.

Both plaintiffs admit that while they did receive the automatic subscription renewal notice as required by ARL, the disclosures did not comply with the ARL because they were purportedly too “small” and not presented in a manner capable of being retained.

However, Synapse contends that there are no facts to support this assertion nor are there allegations that a reasonable consumer would be incapable of reading and printing a copy of the disclosure for his or her records.

“Based on the allegations in the [second amended complaint], it is equally possible that plaintiffs’ purported harm was due to their own conduct (e.g., choosing to not read the relevant communications) and not defendants’ conduct,” Synapse countered.

So, “any claim that plaintiffs have standing because they were subject to an unexpected cost is undermined by the notice,” Synapse stated, also adding that “plaintiffs’ conclusory assertion that ‘unbeknownst’ to them, they were enrolled in ‘a program under which the “subscriptions” would “automatically renew” each year, at a much higher price,’ is a red-herring,” the company argued.

Price and Edgemon are seeking to represent a certified Class of California consumers who were enrolled by Synapse in an automatic renewal program or continuous service program.

The plaintiffs are represented by James T. Hannink and Zach P. Dostart of Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP.

The Magazine Subscription Auto Renewal Class Action Lawsuit is Price, et al. v. Synapse Group Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01524, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.