Tresta Class Action Targets Answering Service Automatic Renewals

A class action lawsuit was filed against Tresta Inc., an online company that offers live answering services, claiming that the business automatically renews customer accounts in violation of California law.

Lead plaintiff Kristyne Hanberg alleges that the company does not ask permission from its customers before automatically renewing their accounts and charging them. According to the complaint, Tresta also violates California’s Automatic Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law.

The lawsuit claims that Tresta, which also operates as PATLive.com, offers telephone answering services at various prices depending on how much time a customer needs each month. The plaintiff alleges that unbeknownst to Tresta customers, the product and services plan contains an automatic renewal and/or continuous service arrangement.

The class action lawsuit states that the Terms and Conditions document provided by Tresta on its website contains information about the “recurring nature” of a subscription to the answering service, but Tresta does not provide those terms when a customer finalizes a purchase. “Indeed, that page does not note that the subscription will be renewed automatically until canceled,” alleges the plaintiff.

The plaintiff further claims that Tresta does not clearly state that customers’ subscriptions will be automatically renewed. Additionally, the plaintiff says that Tresta does not obtain consent from its customers when it renews service contracts. The plaintiff claims that on the webpage where customers create an account with the company, the automatic renewal terms are not included and “[a]s a result, prior to charging Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant failed, and continues to fail, to obtain Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ affirmative consent to any language containing any automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms” as required under California state law.

“Because of Defendant’s failure to gather affirmative consent to the automatic renewal terms, all services provided to Plaintiff and Class Members under the automatic renewal or continuous service agreement are deemed to be an unconditional gift pursuant to [California business law], and Plaintiff and Class Members may use or dispose of the same in any manner they see fit without any obligation whatsoever on their part to Defendant, including, but not limited to, bearing the cost of, or responsibility for, Defendant’s services and products,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiff also alleges that Tresta did not provide information about their cancellation policy or instructions on how to cancel its answering service subscription.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide Class of Tresta customers who purchased services subject to an “automatic renewal.” Additionally, she is seeking damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, plus attorney fees and costs for herself and on behalf of the class.

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

The Tresta Automatic Renewal Class Action Lawsuit is Hanberg v. Tresta Inc., Case No. 8:16-CV-00613 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.