subscription trapper

wall of shame

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 filed suit against the operators of LA Fitness and other gyms, alleging that they 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.

hello fresh

sirius xm

toyota motor credit

L.a. fitness

Federal Trade Commission & 21 State Attorneys General

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. Twenty-one state attorneys general joined the enforcement action in December, enforcing their own consumer protection laws.

GrubHub

Other

Telecom providers

GYMs

Food Delivery Services

vonage

FTC v. Vonage

November 2022

The FTC settled its enforcement action against internet phone service provider Vonage, where it alleged that the company used dark patterns to make it difficult for consumers to cancel and often continued to illegally charge them even after they spoke to an agent directly and requested cancellation. Vonage also had small business accounts that cost thousands of dollars per month. The complaint alleges that Vonage forced customers to speak with a "retention agent" before they could cancel, sent customers "in a circle" when they wanted to cancel, and imposed surprise "early termination fees" in order to cancel.

Equinox

State of New York vs. Equinox LLC

May 2025

The New York Attorney General’s Office reached a settlement with Equinox for its failure to disclose subscription terms and offer consumers “cost-effective and easy-to-use online cancellation mechanisms.” As part of the settlement, Equinox must pay $600,000 in penalties, fix its subscription practices, and offer refunds to customers who tried to cancel their subscriptions but could not. Equinox’s subscription terms were unclear and appeared in fine print disclosures or within a hard-to-understand terms and conditions document. Equinox also did not obtain informed affirmative consent from subscribers and did not provide them with a post-purchase acknowledgment. In addition, Equinox’s cancellation process was complex, difficult, and time-consuming.

Federal Trade Commission vs. GrubHub Holdings

December 2024

FTC reached a $25 million settlement with Grubhub as a result of its deceptive enrollment and cancellation practices. Grubhub enticed customers with offers of “free delivery” under its Grubhub+ subscription, but failed to reveal that subscribers are subject to the same undisclosed fees that non-subscribers pay. Once they had subscribed via an easy process, Grubhub trapped customers by making the cancellation process difficult.

Federal Trade Commission vs. Cleo AI Inc.

May 2025

FTC reached a $17 million settlement with cash advance company Cleo AI for, among other things, failing to provide users with a simple subscription cancellation process. Consumers were charged monthly fees despite repeated requests to cancel, and were told they could not cancel their subscription until outstanding cash advances were paid.. As one user stated, "I have requested over and over and over to cancel my account and you refuse to[,] and then deduct another month out of my account after I have requested you cancel my subscription."

Multistate Attorneys General vs. TFG Holdings, Inc.

October 2025

Thirty-four attorneys general, led by D.C, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Texas settled an action against TFG Holdings, an online retailer operating as JustFab and Shoedazzle. The action alleges that TFG deceptively enrolled customers in paid membership programs with high fees and prevented them from cancelling memberships. TFG will pay refunds to customers valued at $3.8 million and $1 million in costs to the states.

Federal Trade Commission vs. Chegg, Inc.

September 2025

FTC reached a $7.5 million settlement with Chegg, an EdTech company, for making it extremely difficult for consumers to cancel automatically renewing subscriptions and failing to honor consumers’ cancellation requests. To cancel a subscription, Chegg users have to navigate through several pages and click on a misleadingly labeled hyperlink, among other obstacles.

Federal Trade Commission vs. Match Group