Flosports sued for misleading business practices in class action suit

tikk10

Well-Known Member
Nov 6, 2015
6,037
17,882
1
Lucas Young v Flosports, Inc., Northern District California, docket no. 22-cv-04920, filed August 29, 2022
Dropbox link to complaint (PDF)

This complaint concerns Flo's practice of advertising the $12.50/mo price and then enrolling you in the full-year subscription without notifying customers, then making it deliberately difficult to cancel and impossible to get a refund. Many of us have been there and some of us--current and former Flo subscribers living in California--are potential class action beneficiaries.

The case was filed in federal court but is predicated not on federal law but on alleged violations of California's Automatic Renewal Law (“ARL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17600, which requires particular notices for automatic renewals, and to maintain particular cancellation policies. The principle of diversity jurisdiction permits a federal court to decide state court cases where the parties are from different states but the outside party nevertheless subjected itself to that state's laws (in Flo's case, they advertise, sell, etc to California residents).

I imagine Flo's public reaction to this will be to dismiss it as bs but this is a well-drafted complaint from pretty good lawyers with a decent track record, and I know for a fact, personally, that plaintiff's story rings true, and I know many here can respond with an Amen as well.

The minor caveat is that the California law this case hangs on was recently updated only months ago, and this complaint is predicated on that amended version. That may help Flo to some extent because I've no idea whether they could have been found liable under the old law, as it would probably limit their damages to those transactions that fall within a very recent time frame. I suppose they might also say that they were unaware of the California law's amendment, which wouldn't surprise me (and it's hard to believe that if they did know that they'd change their business practices). I don't know how effective that defense would be though, the statute doesn't appear to care whether you violated it knowingly or unknowingly. Either way Flo's legal budget just expanded and they probably wish they hadn't spent so much on Willie.
 

El-Jefe

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2012
26,674
56,914
1
@smalls103 rn:

mj-michael.gif
 

Cstroke

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2019
464
1,042
1
F them.. When it's a running joke on many forums on the only way to avoid that is by having a disposable credit card it's a problem.
I used to subscribe because they gave a lot to the sport and I was ok with supporting that.
Been shafted with events not streaming many times, but had enough with some of the smarmy bs they chose to do...
I am not sure I'll ever support them again..
 

creamery freak

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2014
1,957
4,335
1
Lucas Young v Flosports, Inc., Northern District California, docket no. 22-cv-04920, filed August 29, 2022
Dropbox link to complaint (PDF)

This complaint concerns Flo's practice of advertising the $12.50/mo price and then enrolling you in the full-year subscription without notifying customers, then making it deliberately difficult to cancel and impossible to get a refund. Many of us have been there and some of us--current and former Flo subscribers living in California--are potential class action beneficiaries.

The case was filed in federal court but is predicated not on federal law but on alleged violations of California's Automatic Renewal Law (“ARL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17600, which requires particular notices for automatic renewals, and to maintain particular cancellation policies. The principle of diversity jurisdiction permits a federal court to decide state court cases where the parties are from different states but the outside party nevertheless subjected itself to that state's laws (in Flo's case, they advertise, sell, etc to California residents).

I imagine Flo's public reaction to this will be to dismiss it as bs but this is a well-drafted complaint from pretty good lawyers with a decent track record, and I know for a fact, personally, that plaintiff's story rings true, and I know many here can respond with an Amen as well.

The minor caveat is that the California law this case hangs on was recently updated only months ago, and this complaint is predicated on that amended version. That may help Flo to some extent because I've no idea whether they could have been found liable under the old law, as it would probably limit their damages to those transactions that fall within a very recent time frame. I suppose they might also say that they were unaware of the California law's amendment, which wouldn't surprise me (and it's hard to believe that if they did know that they'd change their business practices). I don't know how effective that defense would be though, the statute doesn't appear to care whether you violated it knowingly or unknowingly. Either way Flo's legal budget just expanded and they probably wish they hadn't spent so much on Willie.
I'm still waiting for the PSU/Oklahoma State match to come on.
 

jpsolo

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2007
277
228
1
I’ve been told if you subscribe through any other platform but wrestling you can choose monthly but I’ve never checked as I’m annual.
 

98lberEating2Lunches

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2018
1,206
1,590
1
@tikk10 so his damages were $137.50 to $300? Not sure what the Plaintiff is looking for beyond the satisfaction of preventing this from happening to others. I guess any real money could come from punitive damages. What are we talking here?
 

tikk10

Well-Known Member
Nov 6, 2015
6,037
17,882
1
I’ve been told if you subscribe through any other platform but wrestling you can choose monthly but I’ve never checked as I’m annual.
Plaintiff was a Flo Grappling subscriber.
 

tikk10

Well-Known Member
Nov 6, 2015
6,037
17,882
1
@tikk10 so his damages were $137.50 to $300? Not sure what the Plaintiff is looking for beyond the satisfaction of preventing this from happening to others. I guess any real money could come from punitive damages. What are we talking here?
It's a class action so this particular plaintiff, as lead class member, actually stands to get a bit more. But class actions aren't about making plaintiffs rich, they're about punishing defendants in areas where attorneys general typically won't bother going. Critics of class actions might say that their purpose is to make plaintiffs' lawyers rich.
 

Cali_Nittany

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2016
5,053
11,036
1
The PRC
It's a class action so this particular plaintiff, as lead class member, actually stands to get a bit more. But class actions aren't about making plaintiffs rich, they're about punishing defendants in areas where attorneys general typically won't bother going. Critics of class actions might say that their purpose is to make plaintiffs' lawyers rich.

This
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82bordeaux

98lberEating2Lunches

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2018
1,206
1,590
1
@tikk10 I see you've made the late night @PatMineo22 twitter feed--Dropbox link with full name and all.

It seems in this instance the 'reporter' didn't protect his source. 😉

And I know, technically it's FloSports (not FloWrestling) that's being sued, but let's not be too picky on word choice.
 
Last edited:

tikk10

Well-Known Member
Nov 6, 2015
6,037
17,882
1
@tikk10 I see you've made the late night @PatMineo22 twitter feed--Dropbox link with full name and all.

It seems in this instance the 'reporter' didn't protect his source. 😉

And I know, technically it's FloSports (not FloWrestling) that's being sued, but let's not be too picky on word choice.
On Facebook he lifted nearly my entire post here, giving no indication that someone else wrote it. I'm not taking it personally, it's not like he'd have given anyone else credit.
 

jpsolo

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2007
277
228
1
My biggest complaint right now are when you’re following a tournament and see a match you’d like to watch and then switch to that mat and you are forced to watch a minute long ad first and miss it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flyinorvi and Ski

98lberEating2Lunches

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2018
1,206
1,590
1
My biggest complaint right now are when you’re following a tournament and see a match you’d like to watch and then switch to that mat and you are forced to watch a minute long ad first and miss it.
Motion to suppress: Extremely prejudicial. Predjudice clearly exceeds probative value.

Objection: Relevance.

Also, that's not part of the suit. 😉

My wife spends way too much time binging 'Law and Order' reruns in retirement. I try to get something useful out of it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: hlstone

98lberEating2Lunches

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2018
1,206
1,590
1
On Facebook he lifted nearly my entire post here, giving no indication that someone else wrote it. I'm not taking it personally, it's not like he'd have given anyone else credit.
Well, that's evidence he hangs on your every word, no?
 

tikk10

Well-Known Member
Nov 6, 2015
6,037
17,882
1
@tikk10

How did you hear about this or did it fall into your internet lap?
Exactly--I'm not a reporter. People just tell me things.

Actually, I have a number of search alerts. I think I set one up for Flosports, Inc. when they were hounding Willie. The initial story here is paywalled but I have a PACER account so I can pull down the docs once I know what court it's in.
 

Cstroke

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2019
464
1,042
1
Or PawrestlerinTn's future.. I read it on the internet so it must be true...