Wantable class action lawsuit overview:
- Who: Plaintiff Rebeka Rodriguez filed a class action lawsuit against Wantable Inc.
- Why: Rodriguez claims the company failed to disclose automatic renewal terms.
- Where: The Wantable class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court.
A new class action lawsuit accuses Wantable of failing to disclose automatic renewal terms for its subscription service, resulting in unlawful charges to customers.
Plaintiff Rebeka Rodriguez claims she was charged more than $350 after signing up for a $21.95 subscription to Wantable’s Sleep & Body Edit service, which sends curated clothing boxes to customers.
Rodriguez says she was unaware that the subscription would automatically renew each month, and that Wantable did not clearly disclose this information on its website or in its post-transaction emails.
“Defendant’s final checkout page presented to consumers violates the [Automatic Renewal Law],” the Wantable class action lawsuit says. “In particular, such page violates Section 17602(a)(1) by failing to describe the ‘cancellation policy that applies to the offer’ as set forth in section 17601(a)(2)(B) via ‘clear and conspicuous’ disclosures in compliance with section 17601(a)(3) by failing to include the automatic renewal offer terms and continuous service offer terms in a ‘clear and conspicuous’ manner.”
Wantable violates automatic renewal law, class action claims
According to the Wantable class action lawsuit, the company violated California’s Automatic Renewal Law, which requires businesses to provide “clear and conspicuous” disclosures of automatic renewal terms before a customer completes a purchase.
The law also requires businesses to provide an acknowledgment of the automatic renewal terms, cancellation policy and information on how to cancel the subscription in a way that can be retained by the customer.
Rodriguez argues Wantable’s website did not meet these requirements, as the automatic renewal terms were presented in small, inconspicuous text and were not clearly linked to the “Place Order” button.
She also alleges that Wantable’s post-transaction emails failed to include the necessary information on how to cancel the subscription.
Rodriguez is seeking to represent a class of all California residents who purchased a product or service from Wantable’s website that included an automatic renewal offer.
She is asking the court for damages, restitution and an injunction to prevent Wantable from continuing its allegedly unlawful practices.
The lawsuit claims that Wantable’s actions violate California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.
Rodriguez alleges that Wantable intentionally misled customers about the nature of its subscription service, causing them to incur unexpected charges.
The lawsuit seeks to hold Wantable accountable for its alleged failure to comply with California’s consumer protection laws and to obtain relief for affected customers.
In related news, Surfshark recently faced a class action lawsuit accusing the company of illegally charging California consumers for automatically renewing subscriptions to its virtual private network services.
What do you think of the allegations made in this Wantable class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiff is represented by Scott J. Ferrell and Victoria C. Knowles of Pacific Trial Attorneys APC.
The Wantable class action lawsuit is Rodriguez v. Wantable Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-02267, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
