Hi experts out there -

I have a business contract that has the term that 'The Service Order will automatically renew for additional successive one-year terms unless at least 60 days before the end of the then-current term either party provides written notice to the other party that it does not want to renew.'

It turns out that we don't need the service anymore but we realized that 60 days notice period has been passed. I know that there's autorenewal law (California Business and Professions Code § 17600 et seq) in california to protect customers but we are on business-business contract. (Its data housing/analytic service and they will get our money for free without any costs occurred to their end since no data will flow to their side) I know that I'm wrong side of the contract but if I sue them with 'non clear and conspicuous autorenewal term' what's the likelihood that I will win? I tried to negotiate early termination and reduce the fee down but all I hear is they will not amend any part of the contract. Now I have to cough up huge chunk of money by missing fine prints..

  • Your likelihood of winning is zero. The term is very clear, and you had ample opportunity to obtain advice regarding the contract prior to engaging it. – Nij Sep 20 '17 at 1:07

Lacking a notice of autorenewal, any product/service delivered is deemed as gift provided the goods/services are not used. (Roz v. Nestle Waters).

California Attorney Generals office may love to pursue such complaints. A notice of such a complaint,along with the holding of Roz, UCL may persuade the auto-renewal B2B provider to reconsider their stance in your favor.

You do not have standing to sue under ARL, but do under UCL.(Johnson v. Pluralsight)

See following which encourages use of FTC and State Attorney Generals enforcement powers to address ROSCA/ARL violation. https://www.offervault.com/scoop/2015/12/07/california-automatic-renewal-subscription-service-litigation-on-the-rise/

| improve this answer | |
  • Why are you referencing Roz v. Nestle Waters? There is nothing to learn about the law from it because it is not even a completed case. At least according to this timeline, it is still open with the most recent activity being in June 2017. This answer seems to be mostly made-up nonsense. – animuson Sep 21 '17 at 15:31
  • @animuson This forum is not a forum for legal advice and hence there is no "hard and fast" rule to cite published and complete cases. Having said that Roz is highly relavent to understanding the authors dilemma. Adding this secondary analysis by DLA here for additional clarity which shall make up for your less than informed comment of made-up nonsense.dlapiper.com/en/us/insights/publications/2017/03/… – Legal Research SWAT Sep 21 '17 at 18:32
  • That's not the point. You cannot cite something as supportive of your reasoning when it hasn't been decided. Roz could very well lose that case. The case simply isn't relevant at all until there's been an actual decision on it. – animuson Sep 21 '17 at 18:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.