“Defendant surreptitiously enrolls the consumer in an automatically renewing ‘subscription’ that, unbeknownst to the consumer at the time, results in recurring charges to the consumer’s credit card, debit card, or third-party payment account every month, in perpetuity until canceled.”

💡 The word “surreptitiously” is not accidental. The complaint is calling this a covert operation run against paying customers, not a disclosure failure.

“The only statement provided on the Checkout Page concerning AG1 Subscriptions appeared in miniscule, inconspicuous font (much smaller than the surrounding text on the Checkout Page), below the payment buttons that consumers must click to place an order.”

💡 California law defines “clear and conspicuous” as larger or contrasting type. AG1 did the exact opposite, physically placing the subscription disclosure where consumers were least likely to see it.

“The disclosure does not state that clicking the payment buttons constitutes agreement to those terms. Finally, because the disclosure is not visible unless consumers open the drop-down box (which they have no reason to do so), Plaintiff and the Class members could not have seen or agreed to the hidden terms.”

💡 There was no moment of consent. AG1 collected monthly payments under a “contract” that consumers never had a genuine opportunity to read or accept.

“Due to Defendant’s misleading cancellation process, he was enrolled in a bi-monthly AG1 Subscription instead and was charged an additional $169.00 (excluding taxes) on August 5, 2025.”

💡 A customer who actively tried to cancel ended up in a new subscription. This is not a bug. It is the product working as designed.

“Retailers have recognized that, where the recurring nature of the service, billing practices, or cancellation process is unclear or complicated, ‘consumers may lose interest but be too harried to take the extra step of canceling their membership[s].’ As these companies have realized, ‘The real money is in the inertia.'”

💡 This is the business model made explicit. Confusion is not a side effect; it is the revenue strategy.

“Defendant’s violations have continuing and adverse effects because Defendant’s unlawful conduct is continuing, with no indication that Defendant intends to cease this unlawful course of conduct. The public and the Class are subject to ongoing harm because the unlawful and/or unfair business practices associated with the AG1 Subscriptions are still used by Defendant today.”

💡 As of the filing date, this scheme had not stopped. Every new customer visiting AG1’s website is potentially walking into the same trap described in this lawsuit.

“Many e-commerce sites work with third-party vendors to implement more manipulative designs… are now taking advantage of subscriptions in order to trick users into signing up for expensive and recurring plans. They do this by intentionally confusing users with the design and flow of their website and apps.”

💡 The complaint situates AG1 within a well-documented industry trend. This is not an accident or an oversight; it is a playbook, and AG1 followed it chapter by chapter.

“Where a ‘business sends any goods, wares, merchandise, or products to a consumer, under a continuous service agreement or automatic renewal of a purchase, without first obtaining the consumer’s affirmative consent[,]’ the material sent will be deemed ‘an unconditional gift to the consumer, who may use or dispose of the same in any manner he or she sees fit without any obligation whatsoever on the consumer’s part.'”

💡 Under California law, every supplement AG1 shipped without proper consent is legally a free gift. Consumers owe nothing for those products. AG1 owes full restitution.