← Marketplace

Subscription Dark-Pattern / ROSCA Cases

Negative-option billing is lawful only when the material terms are clearly disclosed before billing information is taken, consent is express, and cancellation is at least as easy as enrollment. The violations are visible in the enrollment flow itself — which means a captured walkthrough of that flow is most of the case.

Elements & controlling authority

1. Defendant offered a negative-option / auto-renewal plan
   15 USC § 7704; 16 CFR § 425.2(a); Cal. B&P § 17601(b).
2. Material terms not disclosed clearly and conspicuously before billing info collected
   15 USC § 7704(a)(1); Cal. B&P § 17602(a)(1); 16 CFR § 425.4.
3. No express informed consent before the charge
   15 USC § 7704(a)(2); Cal. B&P § 17602(a)(2).
4. No simple cancellation mechanism
   15 USC § 7704(a)(3); 16 CFR § 425.6 (cancellation "at least as easy" as enrollment); Cal. B&P § 17602(c).
5. Injury — post-trial or post-renewal charge
   Hall v. Time, Inc., 158 Cal.App.4th 847 (2008).

The evidence you need — and what we capture

• Screenshot walkthrough of the full enrollment flow with the disclosure state at each step
• Verbatim enrollment terms as presented at the moment of billing-info collection
• Cancellation-path documentation against the "as easy as enrollment" standard

Every capture is sealed at collection: SHA-256 hash-chained artifacts with RFC 3161 trusted timestamps, a methodology block, and a documented scope of audit. If the defendant changes the site tomorrow, the record of today survives.

Damages framework

Restitution of all post-trial charges, statutory penalties, and injunctive relief; class sized via the defendant's merchant-processor records in discovery.

Frequently asked