Peacock Customer Sues for 'Illegal' Auto Renewal Subscription Scheme
Peacock TV engages in an illegal automatic renewal scheme for its subscription streaming service with consumers who enroll in its membership programs through its website, mobile app or set-top devices, alleged plaintiff Holly Winston's fraud class action Friday (docket 1:23-cv-08191) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan.
When consumers sign up for Peacock subscriptions, Peacock enrolls them in a program that automatically renews the subscriptions, charging their credit cards or third-party payment accounts without requisite disclosures and authorizations required under California’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), said the complaint. Peacock’s subscriptions are $5.99 monthly or $59.99 a year for the ad-supported Premium version, or $119.99 annually for the commercial-free Premium Plus option.
Peacock charges customers’ payment methods as payments are due, monthly or yearly. It's then able to “unilaterally charge its customers renewal fees without their consent,” since it's in possession of their payment information, said the complaint. Peacock, headquartered in New York, made the “deliberate decision” to charge customers on a recurring basis, relying on “consumer confusion and inertia to retain customers, combat consumer churn, and bolster its revenues,” the complaint said.
Under the ARL, online retailers who offer automatically renewing subscriptions to California consumers must provide the complete automatic renewal offer terms in a “clear and conspicuous manner” and in visual proximity to the request for consent before completion of the enrollment process, said the complaint, citing the California Business & Professions Code. Retailers must also obtain consumers’ affirmative consent before charging the payment method associated with the subscription. And they must provide acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal offer terms and identify a “a cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use mechanism for consumers to cancel their subscriptions.”
The enrollment process for a subscription on Peacock’s platform “uniformly violates each of the core requirements of the ARL,” said the complaint. The NBCUniversal brand also makes it “exceedingly difficult and unnecessarily confusing for consumers to cancel” their Peacock subscriptions, it said. The streaming service fails to present auto renew offer terms clearly and conspicuously and in visual proximity to the request for consent; it charges payment methods without obtaining affirmative consent to terms; and it fails to provide an acknowledgment with terms, cancellation policy and information on how to cancel, the complaint said. It also fails to provide a toll-free phone number or a cost-effective, timely and easy-to-use mechanism for cancellation, it said.
The complaint shows numerous screenshots of negative consumer reviews on Peacock’s website and on community reviews website Trustpilot about its “unclear cancellation policies and confusing billing” and “widespread pattern of uniform unlawful conduct.”
Plaintiff Winston of Mather, California, asserts claims of violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code and False Advertising Law; unjust enrichment; negligent misrepresentation; and fraud. Winston seeks actual, compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive damages in amounts to be determined by the court or jury; prejudgment interest on awards; injunctive relief; and attorneys’ fees and costs.