Peet’s Coffee Class Action Says Auto-Renewal Practices Violate California Law

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.

Peet’s Coffee & Tea LLC violates California law by automatically charging customers’ credit or debit cards on a recurring basis for coffee and/or tea subscriptions, according to a class action lawsuit filed last week in California.

Plaintiff Eduardo Leon Castillo of Los Angeles County says he used Peet’s website to sign up for a “Café Domingo” coffee subscription in July 2016.

According to the Peet’s class action lawsuit, he selected “Every 4 Weeks” as the subscription frequency. He says his debit card was charged for the subscription on Aug. 1, 2016, and that he received the first shipment of coffee a few days later.

Under the Peet’s subscription policy, Peet’s coffee and tea subscriptions automatically renew on a recurring basis, depending on the frequency selected by the consumer, and will continue until the subscriber cancels the subscription.

This type of auto-renewal policy is subject to California’s Automatic Renewal Law, which requires companies to provide certain types of notices and disclosures, according to the Peet’s class action lawsuit.

Castillo says he changed the type of coffee he ordered for the subscription in August, again in September, and again in October. His debit card was automatically charged for each of these orders.

Near the end of October, Castillo says he elected to discontinue his Peet’s coffee subscription and took the necessary steps to cancel the subscription through the Peet’s website. However, he claims that Peet’s has implemented an automatic renewal practice that fails to comply with California law.

According to the Peet’s class action lawsuit, consumers are not provided with sufficient and compliant notices and disclosures as required by California’s Automatic Renewal Law.

Castillo asserts that, when Peet’s offers its subscriptions to consumers on its website, the coffee company “(a) fails to present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms in a clear and conspicuous manner in visual proximity to the request for consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing agreement is fulfilled; (b) charges consumers’ payment method without first obtaining the affirmative consent of consumers to the agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms; and (c) fails to provide an acknowledgement that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer.”

By filing the Peet’s coffee class action lawsuit, Castillo seeks to represent himself and a Class of all consumers in California who, in the last four years, purchased a coffee and/or tea subscription through Peets.com and whose credit or debit cards were automatically charged on a recurring basis for the subscription.

The Peet’s coffee subscription class action lawsuit asserts violations of California’s Automatic Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law. Castillo also asserts a claim for injunctive relief.

Castillo is represented by Gene J. Stonebarger and Crystal L. Matter of Stonebarger Law APC and Tony M. Soliman of Soliman Law Group PC.

The Peet’s Coffee Subscription Auto-Renewal Class Action Lawsuit is Eduardo Leon Castillo v. Peet’s Coffee & Tea LLC, Case No. GCG-17-556926, in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County.