54 Cal.App.5th 566
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff Eric Mayron brought a putative class action against Google LLC alleging Google Drive’s paid storage plan violated California’s Automatic Renewal Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17600 et seq.) by failing to give clear, conspicuous disclosures, obtain affirmative consent for recurring subscriptions, and provide an easy cancellation mechanism.
- Google demurred, arguing the Automatic Renewal Law contains no private right of action and that Mayron lacked statutory standing under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.).
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The appeal is reviewed de novo; allegations in the complaint are assumed true for demurrer review.
- The Automatic Renewal Law requires affirmative consent for automatic renewals, clear and conspicuous disclosure of terms, and an easy-to-use cancellation mechanism.
- The court considered whether the statute’s text or legislative history creates a private cause of action and whether Mayron alleged the causation and economic injury required for standing under § 17200.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Automatic Renewal Law creates a private right of action | Section 17604’s phrase “all available civil remedies … may be employed” and §17603’s gift remedy show a private cause of action | The statutory language is not a clear, unmistakable grant of private enforcement; enforcement was meant through existing remedies (e.g., AG enforcement or UCL) | No private right of action under the Automatic Renewal Law; statute and legislative history are not sufficiently clear |
| Whether plaintiff has standing under § 17200 to sue for unfair competition | The unconditional-gift provision (§17603) means plaintiff paid for what the law deems a gift, so he suffered economic loss caused by Google’s violation | Plaintiff did not allege that lack of disclosures or cancellation caused him to pay or to continue paying; §17204 requires economic loss caused by the unlawful practice | No §17200 standing: plaintiff failed to allege causation of economic loss (would have paid/kept service regardless) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc., 50 Cal.4th 592 (Cal. 2010) (requires clear, unmistakable legislative intent to create a private right of action)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (§ 17204 requires economic injury caused by defendant’s conduct; narrower standing than Article III)
- Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003) (§ 17200 “borrows” violations from other laws)
- Daro v. Superior Court, 151 Cal.App.4th 1079 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (no standing where plaintiff would have suffered same harm whether or not defendant complied with law)
- Goehring v. Chapman University, 121 Cal.App.4th 353 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (contrasting example where statute’s refund mandate showed clear intent to create private right)
- Moore v. Regents of University of California, 51 Cal.3d 120 (Cal. 1990) (standard of appellate review of demurrer)
- Hall v. Time, Inc., 158 Cal.App.4th 847 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (interpreting causation requirement in § 17204)