ROSCA

Subscribe to ROSCA via RSS

The term “negative option” generally references subscriptions, automatic renewals, continuity plans, or other programs where consumers continue to be charged unless they cancel.

However, a recent New York federal court held that unless a consumer unchecks a box, a one-time shipping protection fee that is automatically added to that consumer’s cart can also be a “negative option” under ROSCA.

The decision could significantly expand the reach of ROSCA, both by applying the law to a one-time add-on fee and by giving private plaintiffs a potential avenue to pursue alleged ROSCA violations under California law. The ruling could have broader consequences for common e-commerce checkout practices that require consumers to affirmatively decline optional charges.

Continue Reading One-Time Shipping Protection Fee May Trigger ROSCA, Court Rules: A Fast VAST Update

From one-click checkouts to autofilled payment fields, the modern payment experience is built on convenience. Consumers have come to expect that apps, websites, and even their mobile devices will seamlessly store and deploy their payment credentials with minimal friction. But beneath this ease lies a growing legal tension, particularly in subscriptions and automatic renewals programs, where sales and marketing laws require clear disclosures before obtaining the consumer’s billing information.

ROSCA Compliance and Subscription Disclosure Timing

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) lawsuit against Uber Technologies illustrates how this tension plays out in practice. The case focuses on Uber’s “Uber One” subscription program and how subscription enrollment is embedded within an app ecosystem where users have already stored payment credentials for one-off transactions. Under the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), material subscription terms must be disclosed before obtaining consumers’ billing information.

Continue Reading Stored Payment Credentials and ROSCA: Lessons from the FTC’s Uber Case

Last week, a federal judge in the Northern District of California ruled on Uber’s motion to dismiss a case brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleging deceptive practices in connection with its Uber One subscription program. The complaint alleged violations of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) and deceptive advertising and marketing misrepresentations in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act and numerous state laws.

FTC Uber Lawsuit and ROSCA Claims

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss as to only two discrete aspects of the complaint. First, it dismissed the FTC’s subclaim challenging Uber’s “$0 delivery fee” representation, holding that the statement was not misleading as a matter of law because it was expressly limited to “eligible” orders and therefore would not lead a reasonable consumer to believe all orders qualified.

Continue Reading FTC v. Uber: California Court Allows Claims against Uber One Subscription to Proceed

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit in federal court against JustAnswer LLC and its CEO, arising from the company’s subscription program. According to the complaint, JustAnswer operates an online platform that engages “experts” where consumers can ask questions through online chats or phone calls about various subject areas.

The complaint alleges JustAnswer advertised a nominal fee for consumers to join the platform and receive an answer to their question (often $1 or $5). However, the FTC alleged that after the customer agreed to the nominal charge, JustAnswer simultaneously enrolled customers in an autorenewing subscription and charged them a much larger monthly fee ($28–$125) and continued to automatically charge consumers every month until the consumer canceled the subscription.

Continue Reading FTC Lawsuit Targets JustAnswer for Alleged ROSCA and Subscription Disclosure Violations

Risk-free trialIt’s no secret that automatic renewal (or continuity or negative option programs) are on many regulators hit lists. Regulators argue that consumers are often unaware that they have signed up for services or products for which they will be billed on a monthly basis unless and until they cancel, particularly when it involves a free trial period. In some cases cancellation may not always be easy and the billing descriptor that appears on the consumer’s credit card statement may differ significantly from the branded product or service name. Finally, otherwise busy consumers may simply forget about the upcoming renewal, particularly if the subscription term is lengthy.

Regulators have responded by bringing numerous law enforcement actions, many of which seek to heighten disclosure requirements. At the federal level many of these enforcement actions are based in part upon ROSCA, the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act. (See our previous posts on ROSCA here.) The Unsubscribe Act, introduced in the House of Representatives earlier this year, seeks to tighten legal requirements for such programs even further.Continue Reading Congress Takes Further Aim at Negative Option Programs