Yet another class action filed against FloSports (dropbox link), this one in the Western District of New York, meaning that, hey, I'm a potential class member!
This complaint is particularly well drafted, and concerns similar terrain as we've already seen and many wrestling fans have experienced. Here, the plaintiff Jerry Hill purchased a what he thought was a monthly subscription to Flo Racing, got dinged for $160, complained shortly thereafter, didn't immediately hear back from Flo, then Flo tells him that he's too late in complaining because it was outside the 30-day refund window.
The complaint explains in some detail, with screenshots of each relevant page, the enrollment sequence and why that process is deliberately misleading.
They also mention how generally hated Flo is by its customers, mostly for the same thing:
The complaint alleges that FloSports is in violation of New York's Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), as well as NY General Business Law §349, which generally prohibits "deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce." NY's ARL specifically concerns paid online subscriptions that renew automatically or only cancel upon the consumer's initiative. To combat the precise type of tactics that are inherent to Flo's business model, NY requires clear and conspicuous notice of the terms, affirmative consent to automatic renewal schemes, and an "easy-to-use" mechanism to cancel. Flo does none of that, of course.
The complaint also alleges that FloSports is in violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, which simply requires customer authorization in any online financial transaction. The complaint claims that Flo isn't obtaining the necessary written authorization for its "preauthorized electronic transfers."
The lawsuit seeks to certify two classes, one comprised of NY-based flo members who have ever been automatically enrolled and charged for at least one month of Flo membership; and one comprised of all FloSports customers in the United States who have ever been automatically enrolled and charged for at least one month of Flo membership. I believe the NY class was included is in case the US class membership certification is denied, or in case the federal claim under the EFTA failed.
This complaint is particularly well drafted, and concerns similar terrain as we've already seen and many wrestling fans have experienced. Here, the plaintiff Jerry Hill purchased a what he thought was a monthly subscription to Flo Racing, got dinged for $160, complained shortly thereafter, didn't immediately hear back from Flo, then Flo tells him that he's too late in complaining because it was outside the 30-day refund window.
The complaint explains in some detail, with screenshots of each relevant page, the enrollment sequence and why that process is deliberately misleading.
They also mention how generally hated Flo is by its customers, mostly for the same thing:
There over 900 complaints filed against on the Defendant on the Better Business Bureau website, many of which involve these same issues. As of October 9, 2022, Defendant has 1.1/5 stars out of possible 5-stars with 1-star being the lowest rating and 5-star the highest in regarding to customer satisfaction.
The complaint alleges that FloSports is in violation of New York's Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), as well as NY General Business Law §349, which generally prohibits "deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce." NY's ARL specifically concerns paid online subscriptions that renew automatically or only cancel upon the consumer's initiative. To combat the precise type of tactics that are inherent to Flo's business model, NY requires clear and conspicuous notice of the terms, affirmative consent to automatic renewal schemes, and an "easy-to-use" mechanism to cancel. Flo does none of that, of course.
The complaint also alleges that FloSports is in violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, which simply requires customer authorization in any online financial transaction. The complaint claims that Flo isn't obtaining the necessary written authorization for its "preauthorized electronic transfers."
The lawsuit seeks to certify two classes, one comprised of NY-based flo members who have ever been automatically enrolled and charged for at least one month of Flo membership; and one comprised of all FloSports customers in the United States who have ever been automatically enrolled and charged for at least one month of Flo membership. I believe the NY class was included is in case the US class membership certification is denied, or in case the federal claim under the EFTA failed.