Lucas Young v Flosports, Inc., Northern District California, docket no. 22-cv-04920, filed August 29, 2022
Dropbox link to complaint (PDF)
This complaint concerns Flo's practice of advertising the $12.50/mo price and then enrolling you in the full-year subscription without notifying customers, then making it deliberately difficult to cancel and impossible to get a refund. Many of us have been there and some of us--current and former Flo subscribers living in California--are potential class action beneficiaries.
The case was filed in federal court but is predicated not on federal law but on alleged violations of California's Automatic Renewal Law (“ARL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17600, which requires particular notices for automatic renewals, and to maintain particular cancellation policies. The principle of diversity jurisdiction permits a federal court to decide state court cases where the parties are from different states but the outside party nevertheless subjected itself to that state's laws (in Flo's case, they advertise, sell, etc to California residents).
I imagine Flo's public reaction to this will be to dismiss it as bs but this is a well-drafted complaint from pretty good lawyers with a decent track record, and I know for a fact, personally, that plaintiff's story rings true, and I know many here can respond with an Amen as well.
The minor caveat is that the California law this case hangs on was recently updated only months ago, and this complaint is predicated on that amended version. That may help Flo to some extent because I've no idea whether they could have been found liable under the old law, as it would probably limit their damages to those transactions that fall within a very recent time frame. I suppose they might also say that they were unaware of the California law's amendment, which wouldn't surprise me (and it's hard to believe that if they did know that they'd change their business practices). I don't know how effective that defense would be though, the statute doesn't appear to care whether you violated it knowingly or unknowingly. Either way Flo's legal budget just expanded and they probably wish they hadn't spent so much on Willie.
Dropbox link to complaint (PDF)
This complaint concerns Flo's practice of advertising the $12.50/mo price and then enrolling you in the full-year subscription without notifying customers, then making it deliberately difficult to cancel and impossible to get a refund. Many of us have been there and some of us--current and former Flo subscribers living in California--are potential class action beneficiaries.
The case was filed in federal court but is predicated not on federal law but on alleged violations of California's Automatic Renewal Law (“ARL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17600, which requires particular notices for automatic renewals, and to maintain particular cancellation policies. The principle of diversity jurisdiction permits a federal court to decide state court cases where the parties are from different states but the outside party nevertheless subjected itself to that state's laws (in Flo's case, they advertise, sell, etc to California residents).
I imagine Flo's public reaction to this will be to dismiss it as bs but this is a well-drafted complaint from pretty good lawyers with a decent track record, and I know for a fact, personally, that plaintiff's story rings true, and I know many here can respond with an Amen as well.
The minor caveat is that the California law this case hangs on was recently updated only months ago, and this complaint is predicated on that amended version. That may help Flo to some extent because I've no idea whether they could have been found liable under the old law, as it would probably limit their damages to those transactions that fall within a very recent time frame. I suppose they might also say that they were unaware of the California law's amendment, which wouldn't surprise me (and it's hard to believe that if they did know that they'd change their business practices). I don't know how effective that defense would be though, the statute doesn't appear to care whether you violated it knowingly or unknowingly. Either way Flo's legal budget just expanded and they probably wish they hadn't spent so much on Willie.