Rolling Stone lifetime subscribers file class action lawsuit after losing access to print magazine

Rolling Stone lifetime subscription class action overview:

• Who: Four consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Penske Media Corp.
• Why: The plaintiffs allege Penske Media breached its contract with consumers by refusing to honor lifetime subscriptions to Rolling Stone magazine.
• Where: The Rolling Stone lifetime subscription class action was filed in California federal court.

A new class action lawsuit accuses Penske Media Corp. of refusing to honor lifetime subscriptions to Rolling Stone magazine.

Plaintiffs Moss Krivin, Eric Hueg, Kim Gallagher and Beverly Penninger filed the class action complaint against Penske Media on June 25 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs and other consumers purchased “lifetime” subscriptions to Rolling Stone magazine, which promised them printed copies of every issue for their entire lives. However, the plaintiffs claim Penske Media, which owns and publishes the magazine, has stopped delivering print copies to lifetime subscribers and is instead offering them only an electronic version of the magazine.

The plaintiffs allege this move constitutes a breach of contract and violates California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).

The plaintiffs claim Penske Media offered lifetime subscriptions in the early 2000s as a way to boost circulation and advertising revenue. For $99, subscribers were promised printed copies of every published Rolling Stone magazine delivered to their homes for their entire lives, the plaintiffs explain.

The plaintiffs claim they accepted the offer, paid the required amount and received print copies of the magazine for at least two decades. The mailing labels on the magazines confirmed their lifetime subscription status, they argue.

However, in May 2024, Penske Media announced it would no longer deliver printed copies to lifetime subscribers, the plaintiffs contend. Instead, the company would only provide them with an “e-Edition” of the magazine, which is essentially a PDF, according to the plaintiffs.

Lifetime subscribers ‘deprived of primary benefit of contract,’ lawsuit says

The plaintiffs claim this change deprives them of the primary benefit of the contract, which is an actual printed copy of the magazine. They argue that the print edition has significant tactile, visual and collectible value that the electronic version lacks.

They also say the e-Edition is difficult to read and is not a substitute for a physical magazine.

The plaintiffs allege Penske Media’s actions have caused them to lose the benefit of their bargain and suffer damages. They seek to represent a nationwide class of people who purchased a lifetime subscription to Rolling Stone as well as subclasses of California, Florida and Pennsylvania residents.

The plaintiffs are suing for breach of contract and violations of the CLRA. They are seeking compensatory damages, specific performance of the contract or rescission and refund of the subscription fee.

In 2020, a federal judge dismissed a similar class action against SiriusXM Radio Inc. claiming the company failed to honor lifetime subscriptions.

What do you think of the claims made in this Rolling Stone lifetime subscription lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by James C. Shah and Kolin C. Tang of Miller Shah LLP and Timothy N. Mathews and Zachary P. Beatty of Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP.

The Rolling Stone lifetime subscription class action lawsuit is Krivin, et al. v. Penske Media Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-05803, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Uber wins partial dismissal in sexual assault MDL; some bellwether claims proceed
• Kayem Foods recalls chicken sausage over plastic contamination
• Kroger Basmati rice contains heavy metals, class action alleges
• Spectrum Cable subscribers file class action lawsuit over deceptive bill charges