HelloFresh agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a consumer protection lawsuit brought by Santa Clara County.
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.
HelloFresh agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a consumer protection lawsuit brought by Santa Clara County.
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.
HelloFresh agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a consumer protection lawsuit brought by Santa Clara County.
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.
HelloFresh agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a consumer protection lawsuit brought by Santa Clara County.
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.
HelloFresh agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a consumer protection lawsuit brought by Santa Clara County.
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.
HelloFresh agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a consumer protection lawsuit brought by Santa Clara County.
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.
HelloFresh agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a consumer protection lawsuit brought by Santa Clara County.
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.
HelloFresh agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a consumer protection lawsuit brought by Santa Clara County.
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.
