HelloFresh settles consumer protection lawsuit with Santa Clara County for $7.5 million
The lawsuit, filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleged the meal-kit company had misled customers and made it difficult for them to cancel their subscriptions.
As part of the settlement, which was approved last week, HelloFresh will pay $6.38 million in civil penalties, $120,000 in investigative costs, and $1 million in restitution to California consumers.
'Misleading automatic renewal subscriptions and false advertising practices don't sell products — they sell deception,' said Santa Clara County Dist. Atty. Jeff Rosen in a Monday news release about the settlement. 'Stop means stop.'
California consumers eligible for the pay out must have been enrolled in HelloFresh's automatic renewal product subscription between Jan. 1, 2019, and Aug. 18, 2025, and charged for the first shipment without their knowledge. They also must have canceled their subscription after that shipment and failed to receive a refund from HelloFresh.
HelloFresh denied wrongdoing.
'We take our commitment to customer transparency very seriously, and our subscription model and cancellation policies have been consistently clear to customers throughout the whole customer journey,' said HelloFresh spokesperson Abby Dreher in an email. 'While we deny any wrongdoing, we have cooperated fully with the coalition of California District Attorneys and have entered into a settlement agreement with them to resolve the matter amicably.'
The Santa Clara County district attorney's office led the case alongside the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, as well as other members of the state's 'Automatic Renewal Task Force,' which also includes the district attorney's offices of San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz counties, as well as Santa Monica's city attorney.
The company enrolled customers in subscriptions with automatic renewal but did not clearly disclose those terms or offer a simple way to cancel the subscription, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office said.
The Santa Clara County District Attorney's office also said the company had failed to provide terms and conditions of free meal perks, bonus gifts and offers for free shipping — actions that are violations of the state laws governing automatic renewal and false advertising.
Millions of consumers pay for services or goods without their consent, and regulators at the federal level have sought to establish rules that prevent this practice — but with little success.
Although the Federal Trade Commission last year finalized a 'click to cancel' rule requiring that it be as easy to cancel a recurrent subscription as to sign up for one, an appeals court of Republican-appointed judges threw out the rule last month after business groups brought a legal challenge. The failure in court came less than a week before the law was to take effect and after years of regulatory work to hash out the specifics.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
26 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Trump
NEW YORK — An appeals court has thrown out the massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump, ruling Thursday in New York state's lawsuit accusing him of exaggerating his wealth. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division said the verdict, which stood to cost Trump more than $515 million and rock his real estate empire, was 'excessive.' After finding that Trump engaged in fraud by flagrantly padding financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. The total — combined with penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — now exceeds $527 million, with interest. 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of several opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron also imposed other punishments, such as banning Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Those provisions have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and he was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which was split on the merits of the lawsuit and the lower court's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty Engoron imposed in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for further appeals to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the suit on the state's behalf, has said the businessman-turned-politician engaged in 'lying, cheating, and staggering fraud.' Her office had no immediate comment after Thursday's decision. Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. In a six-minute summation of sorts after a monthslong trial, Trump proclaimed in January 2024 that he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' He has repeatedly maintained that the case and verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, who are both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, has said that investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted that bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing in September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old, an assertion they made unsuccessfully before trial. The defense also contends that James misused a consumer-protection law to sue Trump and improperly policed private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said the law in question applies to fraudulent or illegal business conduct, whether it targets everyday consumers or big corporations. Though Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, the state contends that the numbers led lenders to make riskier loans than they knew, and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net-worth numbers. The state has argued that the verdict rests on ample evidence and that the scale of the penalty comports with Trump's gains, including his profits on properties financed with the loans and the interest he saved by getting favorable terms offered to wealthy borrowers. The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider; he still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. He's also appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims. Peltz and Sisak write for the Associated Press.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump
NEW YORK (AP) — An appeals court has thrown out the massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump, ruling Thursday in New York state's lawsuit accusing him of exaggerating his wealth. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division said the verdict, which stood to cost Trump more than $515 million and rock his real estate empire, was 'excessive.' After finding that Trump engaged in fraud by flagrantly padding financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. The total — combined with penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — now exceeds $527 million, with interest. 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of several opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron also imposed other punishments, such as banning Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Those provisions have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and he was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which was split on the merits of the lawsuit and the lower court's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty Engoron imposed in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for further appeals to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the suit on the state's behalf, has said the businessman-turned-politician engaged in 'lying, cheating, and staggering fraud.' Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. In a six-minute summation of sorts after a monthslong trial, Trump proclaimed in January 2024 that he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' He has repeatedly maintained that the case and verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, who are both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, has said that investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted that bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing in September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old, an assertion they made unsuccessfully before trial. The defense also contends that James misused a consumer-protection law to sue Trump and improperly policed private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said the law in question applies to fraudulent or illegal business conduct, whether it targets everyday consumers or big corporations. Though Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, the state contends that the numbers led lenders to make riskier loans than they knew, and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net-worth numbers. The state has argued that the verdict rests on ample evidence and that the scale of the penalty comports with Trump's gains, including his profits on properties financed with the loans and the interest he saved by getting favorable terms offered to wealthy borrowers. The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider; he still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. ___
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Minnesota sues TikTok, alleges child exploitation through addictive strategy
SAINT PAUL, Minn. — Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison on Aug. 19 filed a lawsuit against TikTok, claiming its addictive algorithm exploits children and violates Minnesota's consumer protection laws. TikTok, which uses an algorithm to recommend content to its users, has creators who have launched reality television shows like "The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives" and offer book recommendations on "BookTok.' Ellison's office said the app's features include TikTok LIVE from which users can livestream content to audience members. A Minnesota Attorney General's Office statement alleges TikTok operates "an illegal money transfer system through TikTok LIVE that (allows) the company to profit from the financial and sexual exploitation of children." In the lawsuit's complaint, filed in Hennepin County District Court and reviewed by the St. Cloud Times, Ellison states TikTok's internal investigations reportedly show "hundreds of thousands of children" bypass the platform's minimum age restrictions for TikTok LIVE, exposing them to potential exploitation. More: St. Cloud Mayor Jake Anderson proposes 4.5% tax rate increase to correct revenue pattern "TikTok profited significantly from 'transactional gifting' involving nudity and sexual activity, all facilitated by TikTok's virtual currency system," the civil complaint reads. The social media platform restricts monetization to users 18 years old and older, and Ellison's office in the complaint called TikTok's age filter "lax and ineffective." Ellison argues TikTok targets children through its use of popular Disney characters and colorful, animated emojis, which it uses as digital currency. Ellison, in the same civil complaint, alleges the social media platform targets users through the algorithm. He argues this creates a "habitual dependence" to allegedly further exploit children. "By exploiting children's unfinished neurological reward systems that drive desire and motivation, TikTok creates widespread habitual dependence on its app among young people," the civil complaint reads. Minnesota governor's race 2026: Republican hopeful Kendall Qualls wants school choice, more law enforcement Children between the ages of 13 and 17 years old check TikTok an average of 17 times a day, totaling to approximately two hours daily, according to the civil complaint that cites TikTok's own data. More than 20% of teenagers reportedly check the platform between midnight and 5 a.m. Ellison also accuses the same algorithm of allegedly impacting youth mental health. In the civil complaint, Ellison cites a 2023 University of Minnesota study that claims the app has "harmful consequences to their (the users) well-being." The complaint further compares the purported symptoms to that of addicts, including excessive preoccupation, irritability, anxiety and increased interpersonal conflicts. The civil complaint also alleges prolonged TikTok use increases body dissatisfaction, disordered eating behaviors, low self-esteem, self-harm and suicidal thoughts. TikTok calls lawsuit 'misleading' TikTok called the lawsuit 'misleading and inaccurate' in a statement emailed to the St. Cloud Times. "This lawsuit is based on misleading and inaccurate claims that fail to recognize the robust safety measures TikTok has voluntarily implemented to support the well-being of our community,' TikTok wrote in a statement. 'Teen accounts on TikTok come with 50+ features and settings designed to help young people safely express themselves, discover and learn. Through our Family Pairing tool, parents can view or customize 20+ content and privacy settings, including screen time, content filters, and our time away feature to pause a teen's access to our app." Could TikTok go dark in the US? President Donald Trump has less than one month to finalize the sale of TikTok or it could be banned from the U.S. Some government officials have concerns TikTok could jeopardize national security. Those vocal against TikTok fear its parent company, ByteDance, shares U.S. user data with the People's Republic of China (PRC). The company denies these allegations. Trump has extended the deadline for ByteDance to sell the social media platform three times since January. The next deadline is Sept. 17, though Trump could extended the deadline a fourth time. Corey Schmidt covers politics and courts for the St. Cloud Times. He can be reached at cschmidt@ USA TODAY reporter Greta Cross contributed.
