Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Reminder: Updates to the California Automatic Renewal Law Are Now in Effect

By Mark Goodrich, Jason Howell, James G. Snell & Perkins Coie on August 7, 2018
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

California’s updated automatic renewal law (ARL) took effect on July 1, 2018.  We covered these changes in a 2017 client alert, but a reminder is important here because the new law is now “live” and we expect to see more enforcement efforts for alleged noncompliance with the law.

The ARL sets rigid rules about transparency for subscription-based business models where the subscription is automatically renewed, and the subscriber is charged, on a recurring basis (e.g., monthly for a video-on-demand service or beer-of-the-month club). Specifically, such businesses must (1) disclose the automatic renewal offer terms clearly and conspicuously; (2) obtain affirmative consent from the consumer before charging his/her payment method; (3) provide the consumer with an acknowledgement of the automatic renewal terms and cancellation policy in a manner that can be retained for their records (e.g., an email receipt); and (4) notify consumers of any material changes to the automatic renewal terms. The recent changes in the law also now (5) require an online cancellation option for automatic renewal offers that the consumer signed up for online, and (6) clarify that the business must clearly and conspicuously disclose the price that will be charged after a free trial period ends and how and when to cancel before such charge occurs.

In 2018, at least six cases have been filed in California under the ARL. With the growth of subscription-based business models and the changes to the law, we expect to see more attempted enforcement from plaintiffs’ attorneys and government officials moving forward.

Key Takeaways:

  • California’s updated ARL requirements are now in effect and alleged noncompliance may result in litigation.
  • Businesses with subscription-based models should review their automatic renewal disclosures, consent mechanisms, cancellation options, and related processes to ensure that they comply with California’s ARL law.
  • As subscription-based business models grow in popularity, states around the country have adopted applicable laws, so periodically monitor the landscape for updates.
Photo of Jason Howell Jason Howell

Jason Howell serves as co-chair of the Advertising, Marketing & Promotions practice and as a member of the Trademark, Copyright & Media practice.

Read more about Jason HowellEmail
Photo of James G. Snell James G. Snell

James Snell represents and counsels clients on a wide range of complex commercial matters, including privacy and security, Internet, marketing and intellectual property litigation and matters.

Read more about James G. SnellEmail
  • Posted in:
    Corporate & Commercial
  • Blog:
    Consumer Protection Review
  • Organization:
    Perkins Coie LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Beyond the First 100 Days
  • In the Legal Interest
  • Cooking with SALT
  • The Fiduciary Litigator
  • CCN Mexico Report™
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo