Federal Trade Commission vs. Adobe & executives

July 2024

The FTC alleged that Adobe and two of its top executives violated consumer protection laws by using pre-selected defaults to steer consumers into costly annual subscription plans and then imposing numerous cancellation obstacles, including a confusing online interface, dropped calls, and repeated transfers. Consumers who managed to cancel were hit with hefty early termination fees that Adobe failed to disclose, and some were charged even after they had successfully cancelled.

Los Angeles County vs. Hello Fresh

August 2025

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office alleged that HelloFresh violated California’s Automatic Renewal Law by enrolling consumers into automatically renewing meal-kit subscriptions without clearly disclosing terms or obtaining affirmative consent, then failing to provide required post-purchase acknowledgments or an accessible cancellation process. Consumers often found themselves charged for recurring deliveries they did not intend to authorize, and many encountered significant obstacles when attempting to cancel. Under the settlement, HelloFresh will pay $7.5 million in civil penalties, restitution, and investigative costs, while being required to reform its subscription practices.

New York vs. Sirius XM

November 2024

The New York Attorney General’s Office alleged that SiriusXM violated consumer protection laws by trapping subscribers in unwanted, automatically renewing radio plans through an intentionally burdensome cancellation process. Consumers were required to speak with live agents, often facing wait times and repeated sales pitches, rather than being able to cancel online easily. Many customers were charged for additional months after attempting to cancel, and agents were trained to prolong interactions rather than process cancellations promptly. Under the court’s ruling, SiriusXM was found liable for violating the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) and is required to reform its cancellation procedures to make them simpler and more accessible for New York consumers.

Federal Trade Commission vs. Amazon & executives

June 2023

The FTC alleged that Amazon and three of its top executives enrolled millions of consumers into Amazon Prime without their consent using manipulative dark patterns, and deliberately sabotaged attempts to cancel via a convoluted cancellation process they nicknamed the “Iliad flow.” The complaint alleged that Amazon dragged out the cancellation path with multiple pages, clicks, and confusing options, all while rejecting changes that would simplify cancellation.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau vs. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation

November 2023

The CFPB alleged that Toyota violated consumer protection laws by adding extra products to auto loans without clear consent and then making it difficult for borrowers to cancel them. Consumers were often charged for add-on items such as service contracts and insurance coverage that they did not authorize or understand, and many faced obstacles when attempting to remove these products. Toyota required customers to contact a specialized “retention” hotline, where representatives were trained to discourage cancellations and delay refunds. The company also misreported consumers’ credit information, marking some as delinquent even after loans were paid off or vehicles were returned.

Federal Trade Commission vs. L.A Fitness

August 2025

The FTC alleged that LA Fitness illegally trapped consumers in gym memberships and add-on services by imposing burdensome and opaque cancellation requirements. The complaint charges that consumers were forced to print forms and locate specific staff during limited hours or send a cancellation notice via registered or certified mail, and even then often faced continued billing after attempting to cancel.

adobe

hello fresh

sirius xm

toyota motor credit

L.a. fitness

Federal Trade Commission vs. Uber

April 2025

The FTC alleged Uber enrolled consumers in its "Uber One" subscription service without consent, failed to deliver promised savings, and intentionally made it difficult to cancel the service. The complaint claims Uber used deceptive design tactics, like hiding key information in small text, as well as charging users before free trials ended, and leading consumers through dozens of confusing steps in order to cancel. The FTC says these practices violate the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), which require clear disclosures, consumer consent, and simple cancellation options.

uber

amazon