- Surfshark has been hit by a class action lawsuit over alleged “illegal” auto-renewal fees
- A Californian customer accused Surfshark of automatically enrolling him in renewal without his consent
- Most popular VPN providers employ similar auto-renewal systems – a practice lawyers allege to go against California’s consumer law
A Californian customer has dragged Surfshark into court, accusing the VPN provider of charging him allegedly “illegal” auto-renewal fees.
Plaintiff Arvin Garcia filed a class action lawsuit against Surfshark in California’s Central District Court on July 17, arguing that the VPN firm enrolled him in three one-year-long plan renewals without his consent. Garcia has brought the case forward for himself and all other California consumers who happened to be charged illegal auto-renewal fees.
Despite a handful of exceptions, the majority of the best VPNs on the market operate their subscriptions according to similar auto-renewal systems. Two more providers, NordVPN and ExpressVPN, are, in fact, facing similar complaints in the US right now.
Is Surfshark breaching California’s law?
As stated in the lawsuit, Garcia purchased a two-year subscription for the virtual private network (VPN) service in May 2020, believing he was making a one-time purchase.
After the plan expired, however, “unbeknownst to him and without his consent, Surfshark enrolled him in an automatically renewing plan,” reads the suit.
Surfshark supposedly charged Garcia for yearly renewals in May of 2022, 2023, and 2024 – automatic charges that, according to the plaintiff’s lawyers, “were illegal and should be refunded.”
Specifically, lawyers argue that Surfshark is in breach of its obligations under California’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL). The law requires companies adopting auto-renewal payments to provide “clear and conspicuous” disclosures about the auto-renewal plan and obtain “affirmative consent” to enroll consumers. Surfshark, the lawsuit claims, violated these terms in “multiple ways.”
Surfshark is also accused of breaching the False Advertising Law “by disseminating misleading advertisements concerning the automatically renewing nature of Surfshark plans,” wrote lawyers.
This July 2025 lawsuit follows similar accusations brought against Surfshark in 2024, always under California law.
TechRadar has approached Sursfhark for comments, but we are still waiting for a response at the time of publication.
Should VPNs axe auto-renewal plans?
Surfshark is far from being the first popular VPN provider to face legal troubles in the US over allegedly deceptive auto-renewal pricing.
ExpressVPN is also facing a class action in California right now, in fact, after being hit with a similar legal complaint in June 2025.
While NordVPN has been taken to Court over alleged “illegal and deceptive” auto-renewal practices in at least four US states so far.
The Wittels McInturff Palikovic law firm presented legal complaints on behalf of four former NordVPN customers since April 2024 – and now urges all NordVPN users who were charged for a subscription they did not want to come forward.
The same law firm has previously opened investigations into auto-enrollment practices against ExpressVPN, too, alongside Proton VPN and Private Internet Access (PIA). Yet, lawyers filed no lawsuit against these providers.
We have to wait to see what the judges will eventually decide, but these legal actions clearly signal that a change in how VPN firms manage their payment subscriptions may be needed. The question now is whether providers are willing to amend their business model and ditch auto-renewal plans for good.
You might also like
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Be2biKBJvmWNyid55bUKKY.jpg
Source link
chiara.castro@futurenet.com (Chiara Castro)
