Chess.com Violates California Law

If you are a resident of California and your annual Chess.com membership renewed automatically without any notice reminding you 15-45 days in advance, your legal rights have been violated. Since 2022, California has required advance notification for subscriptions that automatically renew annually. There is absolutely no excuse for Chess.com to ignore this requirement. If you’d like to be considered for lead plaintiff in a class action complaint, and you live in California and did not receive advance notice before your annual subscription renewed, add me as a friend.

https://www.dglaw.com/californias-amended-automatic-renewal-law-takes-effect-july-1-2022-what-subscription-based-companies-need-to-know/

The requirement for notification seems to only apply when the free trial period is more than 31 days; chess.com’s free trial period is less than that. The other parts of the law seem to relate to clearly explaining the terms of the free trial etc and some parts about having an easy method of contacting them to cancel their subscription. That last part could probably do with some work, but good luck with taking that to court.

I am not a resident of California

@David that is incorrect. When a free trial lasts 31 days or longer, a notice is required 3-21 days before the free trial period ends to remind of the upcoming charge. That’s a separate requirement. The section I’m relying upon can be found if you search “Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17602 (b)(2)” and it says, “(2) The consumer accepted an automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer with an initial term of one year or longer, that automatically renews unless the consumer cancels the automatic renewal or continuous service. In this case, the notice shall be provided at least 15 days and not more than 45 days before the automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer renews.”

When one signs up for the 7 day free trial of premium membership, the cost of renewal is described as per month, which means it’s less than the initial term if 1 year described in

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2022-august/let-em-out-rosca/#:~:text=Amendments%20to%20California's%20Automatic%20Renewal,renew%20and%20how%20to%20cancel.
I don’t like the way that it gives the cost per month if you pay yearly, but I guess that means people would need to explicitly choose that yearly payment option. But the subscription itself is per month and can be cancelled at any any time and the remaining amount of unused premium membership refunded. Heck, chess.con generally refunds the current month’s membership as well, even though their terms of service say they don’t have to.

The law is aimed at companies who are tricking customers into subscriptions that they then have difficulty cancelling. Chess.com isn’t doing that, so good luck with your class action… hopefully the plaintiffs are smart enough to go with a “no result, no pay” clause so they’re not out of pocket for legal expenses if/when the case fails…

Wait, isn't there another topic you've made about the same thing? How many more are you planning?

David, wrong again. Annual subscriptions are paid in a single upfront payment for the year. Maybe you should reconsider whether legal analysis is one of your strengths before continuing to embarrass yourself. Of course they are tricking people into renewing something they don’t want. Are you seriously going to argue that sending renewal reminders does not reduce online auto renewal rates? That’s been the universal truth for decades, David. And if some people can get a refund afterwards, good for them, but it certainly won’t be all of people who were tricked. Many won’t bother to try in part because the terms of service are insistent that it’s not possible. But it’s entirely moot. The law, if you actually read it, is unambiguous. Renewal notice is required 15-45 days in advance for subscriptions that renew annually. Chess.com violates the law, as will soon be evident when they begin to send auto renew notices.

@magipi Correct! I wasn’t planning any more than two… but will consider it. Thanks for reading and leaving a comment! I’d always welcome a European perspective on issues such as auto renewal. The EU has certainly led the way regarding privacy protection and consumer rights online.

@bobby_max Nice try but 12 year olds aren’t allowed to have an account. I’m 13.

Californian law seems reasonable. Chess.com would do well to comply, even when not in California.

@Spawney It seems pretty clear to me that the law is designed to stop people signing up to a free trial and then being automatically renewed without notice for that first time after that initial trial period. Trying to make it apply to subsequent renewals is a stretch that isn't mentioned in either of the 2 cautions from actual law firms explaining what businesses need to consider when the law was introduced.

One of which also mentions that the Californian law is basically the same as the existing law in New York, so if your theory of the case was correct, then New York based customers could start the same sort of class action as the one you're proposing here. Frankly, I think you're full of hot air and haven't got the guts to file any sort of legal action against Chess.com at all. If you want to prove that you're not jsut a disgruntled loser and the actual embarassment here, you're going to need to post a link to the legal case that gets filed. I'm not going to hold my breath, though LOL

@David instead of trusting actual law firms and the college interns who write their blogs, trust the actual law. Of course it’s about subsequent renewals! It says, “f) The requirements of this article shall apply only prior to the completion of the initial order for the automatic renewal or continuous service, except as follows:
(1) The requirements in paragraphs (3) and (4) of subdivision (a) may be fulfilled after completion of the initial order.
(2) The requirements in subdivision (b) may be fulfilled after completion of the initial order.” Well guess what subdivision (b) is all about….

b) A business shall provide a consumer with a notice as specified in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) if either of the following is true, provided that if an automatic renewal offer or a continuous service offer requires a notice under both paragraphs (1) and (2), only the notice specified in paragraph (2) shall be required:
(1) The consumer accepted a free gift or trial, lasting for more than 31 days, that was included in an automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer or the consumer accepted an automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer at a promotional or discounted price, and the applicability of that price was more than 31 days.
(A) The notice shall be provided at least 3 days before and at most 21 days before the expiration of the predetermined period of time for which the free gift or trial, or promotional or discounted price, applies.
(B) An offer shall be exempt from the requirements under this paragraph if the consumer does not enter into the contract electronically and the business has not collected or maintained the consumer’s valid email address, phone number, or another means of notifying the consumer electronically.
(C) For purposes of this paragraph, “free gift” does not include a free promotional item or gift given by the business that differs from the subscribed product.
(2) The consumer accepted an automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer with an initial term of one year or longer, that automatically renews unless the consumer cancels the automatic renewal or continuous service. In this case, the notice shall be provided at least 15 days and not more than 45 days before the automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer renews.

cels the automatic renewal or continuous service. In this case, the notice shall be provided at least 15 days and not more than 45 days before the automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer renews.

@tygxc Thank you for saying that. It’s amazing to see how many people will oppose laws that are intended to protect consumers. I’d like to think that once implemented for California, a company like Chess.com would give this same benefit to everyone everywhere. But that hasn’t been how most companies have reacted to California’s privacy law. Typically Californians have the right to delete their data whereas the rest of us do not. At some point, as more states pass their own versions of these types of laws, which are all a bit different to implement, that strategy will backfire and they’ll be begging for a federal law. But the differences in how customers are treated are even bigger internationally… EU gets a much better privacy law thats done nothing for US (yet).. and it seems the EU will be getting third party app stores on iPhones whereas the rest of the world will not. Greed wins over treating every customer with the same level of respect and giving them the same rights.

@WilkieAdam Agreed. Nobody can write in a more convoluted, over complicated way than a legislator from California.

you must spend hours writing these pharagraphs

@David I am a disgruntled loser! How did you know? But at least I can read. Are you going to acknowledge being wrong or what.

@Nathankuonat The long ones are just copied from the California legislature.gov. Sorry

did you ask for a refund? I read somewhere that recent refunds on automatic renewals were given automatically