Sirius XM loses bid to dismiss class action lawsuit alleging deceptive pricing scheme

Sirius XM class action lawsuit overview:

• Who: A judge denied Sirius XM’s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit.
• Why: The ruling stated that the way Sirius XM informed customers of royalty fee was outside the confines of reasonable expectations.
• Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Oregon federal court.

A federal judge has denied Sirius XM’s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against it by a group of plaintiffs alleging the company engaged in a deceptive pricing scheme.

Plaintiffs Kara Kirkpatrick, Gillian Maxfield, Anna DeMarco and Cody Michael claim Sirius XM falsely advertised its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges.

The plaintiffs argued Sirius XM violated Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, according to the original lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon ruled the plaintiffs’ claims were timely and that they had adequately alleged that Sirius XM’s conduct was outside the confines of their reasonable expectations, a Law360 report stated.

Sirius XM had argued the plaintiffs’ claims were untimely because they had received sufficient knowledge to “excite attention” about the royalty fee included in their music plan subscriptions since it would have appeared on their credit card statements and was reflected in their respective Sirius XM online accounts.

Sirius XM allegedly failed to inform plaintiffs of royalty fee

Judge Simon determined that a jury could find that a plaintiff “might reasonably miss such a small additional charge in the cacophony of everyday life,” according to the Sirius XM class action lawsuit.

The plaintiffs argue they were not informed of the added cost of the royalty fee until the final webpage of the online purchase process, or, in the case of the plaintiffs who enrolled in a Sirius XM subscription over the phone, not at all.

The plaintiffs claim Sirius XM’s customer service told subscribers asking about the royalty fee that it was “government mandated” or a “government pass-through fee,” according to the Sirius XM class action lawsuit.

The judge ruled that, at this stage of the litigation, the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the way Sirius XM informed them of the royalty fee was outside the confines of their reasonable expectations.

What do you think of the claims made in this Sirius XM class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by Che Corrington and Daniel M. Hattis of Hattis, Lukacs & Corrington and Stephen P. DeNittis of DeNittis Osefchen Prince P.C.

The Sirius XM class action lawsuit is Kirkpatrick, et al. v. Sirius XM Radio LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-955, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Two class actions accuse Macy’s and Discount Tire of sending emails with misleading subject lines
• Class action lawsuit says Dexcom sold G7 glucose monitors that failed to warn of life-threatening glucose levels
• Class action alleges On Cloud shoes have defect that causes them to squeak
• Class action claims Hawaiian Tropic’s ‘SPF 50’ sunscreen provides far less protection