Pluralsight Class Action Says Automatic Renewal Terms are Illegal

Pluralsight, an online technology training company, violated California law by automatically renewing memberships, according to a class action lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that Pluralsight “failed to provide an acknowledgment 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,” in violation of California consumer protection statutes.

The Pluralsight automatic renewal class action lawsuit argues that as a result of the illegal nature of Pluralsight’s automatically renewing memberships, “all goods, wares, merchandise, or products sent to Plaintiff and Class Members under the automatic renewal of continuous service agreements are deemed to be an unconditional gift” under California law.

Plaintiff Kyle Johnson states that he signed up for a monthly membership to Pluralsight. While Johnson did receive a welcome email describing a ten-day “free trial offer,” he contends that he did not receive any notification or description of the terms of the automatic renewal, as required by California statute.

The class action complaint also alleges that “Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with an acknowledgement regarding how to cancel the subscription and allow Plaintiff and Class Members to cancel before payment.”

According to the lawsuit, Pluralsight should offer consumers “a toll-free telephone number, electronic mail address, a postal address only when the seller directly bills the consumer, or another cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use mechanism for cancellation,” but fails to do so.

The Pluralsight automatic renewal lawsuit seeks to represent a Class of all persons within California who purchased any product or service from Pluralsight “in response to an offer constituting an ‘Automatic Renewal’” under California law. The plaintiff requests restitution for California members of all subscription fees paid to Pluralsight.

Similar lawsuits alleging violation of California consumer protection laws regarding automatic renewal terms have been reported recently by TopClassActions.com.

In February, a class action filed against DreamBrands alleges that the nutritional supplement provider does not provide the renewal or cancellation terms of its automatically renewing memberships on the same webpage as the sign-up offer.

In May, a class action asserted claims against Freshdesk, a web-based company that provides subscriptions for customer support services which automatically renew. The complaint alleges that Freshdesk does not explicitly tell potential customers of the automatic renewal terms, and thus does not obtain affirmative consent to those terms, as required by California law.

Also in May, “paleo” snack provider Paleohacks LLC was accused of having memberships that renew monthly, quarterly, or biannually, without providing the terms of the automatic renewal or how to cancel the membership.

Finally, two weeks ago Topclassactions.com reported that a class action sued computer game manufacturer Turbine Inc. for its subscriptions to online games which automatically renew.  The complaint alleges that Turbine failed to provide the cancellation terms in a “clear and conspicuous” manner which was capable of being retained by the consumer.

Johnson is represented by Scott J. Ferrell, Richard H. Hikida, David W. Reid, and Victoria C. Knowles of the Newport Trial Group.

The Pluralsight Auto Renewal Class Action Lawsuit is Kyle Johnson v. Pluralsight, LLC, Case No. 2:16-at-00639, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.