LinkedIn Subscriptions and Oregon’s Automatic Renewal Law Class Action

More and more companies are seeking to enroll consumers in subscription programs. In this class action, the complaint alleges that LinkedIn Corporation is one of them, enrolling consumers in LinkedIn Premium or LP subscriptions, but it also claims that LinkedIn does not fulfill the requirements of Oregon’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL).

A class and a subclass have been defined for this action:

• The Oregon Class is all persons in Oregon who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, up to and including the date of final judgment in this action incurred fees in connection with LinkedIn’s LP Subscription offerings.
• The Oregon Subclass is all members of the Oregon Class who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, up to and including the date of final judgment in this action incurred fees in connection with their enrollment in a free trial of any of LinkedIn’s LP Subscription offerings.

LinkedIn is an employment-related platform that operates via a website and an app. It was founded in December 2002 and began offering subscriptions for premium content in March 2005. In December 2016, Microsoft acquired LinkedIn.

Premium subscriptions offer benefits such as access to InMail messages, information as to who has viewed a profile, interview preparation advice, and educational material. At times, the complaint alleges, LinkedIn offers free trials, after which it segues into charging the consumer for a subscription.

While subscriptions and automatic renewal services have become increasingly popular with businesses, the complaint alleges that some companies use “dark patterns” which can trick visitors into signing up for subscriptions or make it difficult to cancel.

Oregon’s ARL requires that companies who want to offer subscriptions or automatic renewal programs do certain things:

• They must present the offer terms in a clear and conspicuous manner, visually near to the request for consent.
• They must get the consumer’s affirmative consent to the terms before charging the consumers’ payment method.
• They must provide an acknowledgement that includes the offer terms and information on how to cancel, in a form that the consumer can retain.

The complaint alleges that LinkedIn has charged residents of Oregon for subscriptions or automatic renewal programs without fulfilling these requirements.

The complaint alleges, for example, that LinkedIn fails to disclose the full terms of its automatic renewal programs and that it “fails to disclose a toll-free telephone number or describe another cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use mechanism for cancellation…” In fact, the complaint claims, LinkedIn “makes it exceedingly difficult and unnecessarily confusing for consumers to cancel their LP subscriptions”—which the complaint claims is another violation of the ARL.

The complaint reproduces many online complaints from consumers who either were not aware that they had signed up for a subscription or who found it difficult or impossible to cancel a subscription.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: Automatic Subscription Renewal or Continuous Service Agreement, Unfair Business Practices, Unfair Charges, Unfair Subscription Practices