An appeal has been filed to continue an attempted class action lawsuit against Google and YouTube arguing the TV, Music, & Premium registration process violated Oregon subscription laws.
In June ’23, the class action was dismissed in favor of Google/YouTube. Here’s how that opinion came down:
Oregon has two laws that govern subscription service offerings to consumers: Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) + Free Offer Law (FOL). These are tied to Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA), which aims to prevent consumer harm from deceptive sales or business tactics.
A class action lawsuit was brought by Victor Walkingeagle, Nathan Briggs, and Donald Molina on May 25, 2022. They claimed that YouTube did not comply with disclosure, consent, and acknowledgment requirements.
The plaintiffs claimed that YouTube’s disclosures (at checkout and confirmation emails) weren’t clear about the 7-day and 24-hour refund and cancellation policies unless a consumer went into the full terms.
The court disagreed.
The court determined that the checkout pages and acknowledgment emails contained clear and conspicuous disclosures required by the laws. The court also examined specific claims related to the 7-day and 24-hour refund policies, clear and conspicuous disclosures, acknowledgment requirements, and affirmative consent.
In each instance, the court concluded that the Defendants had met the legal requirements.
The court also said the disclosures were sufficient from the perspective of a reasonable consumer, and that there wasn’t a need for consumer survey data to evaluate their adequacy.
Regarding the 7-day refund policy, the court determined that its exclusion from checkout pages & acknowledgment emails did not violate the ARL or FOL. The laws focused on cancellation policies & avoiding financial obligations, not on refund policies after a free trial period.
The court found that the checkout pages and acknowledgment emails provided the required disclosures in a clear and conspicuous manner. Pages 8 and 9 of the opinion include some of the example screenshots.
The content and format satisfied the legal requirements, including visual proximity to the request for consent and using contrasting type or symbols to call attention to the language.
The court addressed additional claims related to acknowledgment requirements, affirmative consent, and honoring cancellation attempts. It concluded that the Defendants had met the requirements of the laws in each case.
Based on the analysis of the claims, the court found that the complaint (as amended) failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Google/YouTube’s Motion to Dismiss was granted, & the case was dismissed with prejudice (the Plaintiffs cannot refile the same claims)
On July 12, the plaintiffs officially filed an appeal in the 9th Circuit, which can be accessed here.
The original lawsuit is Walkingeagle v. Google LLC, 3:22-cv-00763, (D. Or.).