A class action lawsuit filed by Garcia Arvin, the California resident alleges that Surfshark charged him “Renewals” fee without his consent, and for that, the company is entangled in a class action lawsuit for VPNs, all due to their peculiar policies. Dovel & Luner stands for Garcia’s cause.
The lawsuit was filed with the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Surfshark is accused of breaking the California Automatic Renewal Law by signing Garcia up for automatic charges without his consent. Under the law, companies must inform a customer of a subscription’s renewal and must seek authorization prior to charging a customer.
In May 2020, Garcia bought a Surfshark 24 month plan and claims that he was lured to the offer under the illusion that it was a one time offer. However, Surfshark’s supposed billing of $59.76 for renewals in 2022, 2023 and 2024 after the subscription ended is where he draws the line. To him, that was more surprising than anything and he considers that a legal violation.
What the law actually says
The California Automatic Renewal Law was designed to assist people in circumstances such as this. It requires businesses to:
- Clearly explain when and how a subscription will renew.
- Get a clear “yes” from the customer before enrolling them.
- Make canceling as simple as signing up.
Garcia alleges that Surfshark has failed on all fronts. In the complaint, the company’s disclosures had no attempt to give Mr. Garcia the chance to opt-out and appeared as vague and hidden in small print. This is the company’s first encounter with scandals of this type. In 2024, the VPN company endured similar accusations with regard to auto-billing practices.
This new case mounts additional scrutiny on a brand that prides itself on being user-centric, as the brand is now under the microscope for the way it deals with subscriptions.
What Garcia wants from Surfshark
Garcia is not only advocating for his personal rights. He intends to speak for all the residents in California who purchased a Surfshark plan via the internet and were charged for at least one automatic renewal.
His lawsuit asks for:
- A declaration of Jury trial.
- A declaration that Surfshark’s conduct is unlawful.
- A court order stopping the company from auto-billing absent affirmative consent.
- Restitution and damages for all affected customers.
With the support of Dovel & Luner LLP, Garcia’s hope is to not only make Surfshark pay, but also to change their practices on renewals for the future.
Why this matters to us, the everyday consumers
Auto-renewals are commonplace these days, from VPN and music apps to streaming services and gym subscriptions. It has happened to me more than twice actually, and i’m not proud of it but sometimes platforms can be very snicky in the way they act. Most of the time if you realize you’ve being charged immediately they give your money back and end the subscription, but if you don’t they will happily charge yo for as long as they want.
While an automatic renewal can be handy, they can also ensnare users into subscriptions they never intended to renew. This is why cases like Garcia’s hold weight. A ruling in his favor would force attempts at corporate responsibility.
As for consumers, this is one reminder to always check the box. Keep track of dates for renewals. Keep an eye on bank statements for unusual activities.
In an age where users’ privacy is a concern, the billing elements of the subscription services should also be secured. Surfshark is not the only subscription service. Its competitors also offer a tough reminder, because in business, the law is as precise and clear as the lack of it is broken.