MLB.com Class Action Says Prime Subscribers are Double-Billed

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.

A California woman says MLB.com has been overcharging MLB Prime subscribers, contrary to the advertised subscription terms.

According to plaintiff Erin Perry, defendant MLB.com advertises a discounted initial year of MLB Prime membership, yet fails to deliver the full year subscription at the advertised rate.

The defendant allegedly renews subscriptions months before the first year has passed, double-billing subscribers for the overlapping months.

MLB.com lures subscribers into this arrangement using promotional materials that constitute false advertisement under California’s consumer protection laws, according to this MLB Prime class action lawsuit.

Perry says she purchased an MLB Prime subscription in July 2016, taking advantage of MLB.com’s offer of an introductory rate of $79.99. She says she got confirmation from an MLB representative that the introductory rate would last for a full year.

But in March 2017, Perry claims, MLB.com renewed her membership at the full rate of $112.99 – four months before the expiration of her first year’s membership. She got no notice of the early renewal, and she was never given an opportunity to approve or reject it, she says. She asked MLB.com to refund her money for the four months she was double-billed, but she says MLB.com gave no response.

At the time of her purchase, Perry says, she got no notice of the terms of the subscription. Her only information about what to expect came from the promotional materials that promised her a full first year subscription for a discounted rate. She accuses MLB.com of purposely neglecting to provide a full copy of the subscription terms in an attempt to conceal its alleged deception.

Perry claims MLB.com’s promotional materials misstated the subscription terms with the intention of getting persons like her to purchase a product they would not have purchased otherwise. Absent the alleged misrepresentations, she claims, neither she nor the proposed Class Members would have purchased an MLB Prime subscription.

This MLB Prime class action lawsuit raises claims for violation of California’s False Advertising Act, Unfair Business Practices Act, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Perry believes other MLB Prime members have gotten the same treatment. She proposes to bring her claims on behalf of a nationwide plaintiff Class that would cover all consumers who, during the applicable statutory limitations period, purchased an MLB Prime membership and were charged renewal fees based on terms other than those represented by MLB.com.

She seeks a court order requiring MLB.com to stop advertising and selling MLB Prime and to notify its MLB Prime members of its allegedly deceptive conduct. She also seeks awards of damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation, and any other relief the court sees fit to grant.

Perry is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Adrian R. Bacon and Meghan E. George of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC.

The MLB Prime False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Perry v. MLB Advanced Media LP, Case No. 2:18-cv-01548, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.