Amazon sued for enrolling and charging customers into Audible without consent

Audible, a subsidiary of Amazon, has two pending class action lawsuits against it for enrolling Amazon customers into the Audible membership without their consent and charging them the $14.95 monthly subscription fee^[1]

In Sherk v. Audible, the plaintiff alleges Audible enrolled existing Amazon account holders into Audible’s monthly subscription (“membership”) without their knowledge or consent.^[2][3] The complaint alleges that Audible utilized payment information already on file with Amazon, charged monthly membership fees, and made it difficult for users to discover, cancel, or obtain refunds for these subscriptions.

In Heck v. Amazon, the plaintiff used Amazon’s “FREE No-Rush Shipping” option, which came with a “digital reward.”^[1] She later discovered that redeeming this reward resulted in her personal and payment information being passed to Audible. The lawsuit alleges that Audible then enrolled her in a 30-day trial that automatically converted into a paid subscription unless it was affirmatively canceled. The plaintiff alleged she never received notice, confirmation, or cancellation information and was billed for several months without knowledge.

The plaintiff states that the victims of Amazon's enrollment in Audible had a difficult time cancelling the subscription service, which may be due to the company's failure to enact click-to-cancel^[3] that can result in customers continuing to be charged for the service during the time it takes them to cancel.

A similar lawsuit was filed on January 10, 2025, claiming that Amazon would pass consumer information to Audible, which would then sign up consumers for a free trial.^[1] After the free trial expired, the consumer would be transitioned to a paid subscription without notification.

Amazon and Audible responded to Heck’s claims by arguing that they had no duty to disclose any link between "No-Rush Shipping" rewards and Audible enrollment, since the rewards were marketed as digital credits and any Audible trial was separate, voluntary, and disclosed.^[4] They contended that Heck failed to show reliance or causation, as her choice of "No-Rush Shipping" was motivated by free shipping rather than Audible. They further claimed compliance with the California Auto-Renewal Law by providing clear terms, obtaining consent, and sending acknowledgment emails, suggesting that Heck either ignored or forgot these notices. Drawing on Viveros v. Audible, they insisted that the signups were transparent and optional, meaning Heck must have given consent. Finally, they questioned whether she had suffered any real injury, noting that she had received both rewards and the Audible trial and could have canceled before charges accrued, making her losses the result of her own inaction rather than deception.

The court rejected most of these arguments at the dismissal stage.^[4] It found that Heck plausibly alleged non-disclosure, lack of consent, and ARL violations, which are sufficient to proceed. Notably, the court noted that the situation was unlike Viveros, as Heck alleged; she was enrolled in Audible without realizing it, whereas Viveros involved consumers knowingly signing up.

In Sherk v. Audible, the plaintiffs claim that customers were enrolled in Audible memberships without their consent, often without realizing they had been signed up at all.^[2] Audible allegedly used personal and billing information already stored in Amazon accounts to facilitate these enrollments and failed to provide explicit written confirmation or conspicuous notice of recurring charges. Many customers only discovered their membership after receiving unexpected billing, and, according to the complaint, Audible made cancellation difficult, with some users continuing to be charged even after attempting to cancel their membership. The lawsuit further alleges that many of these “nonconsensual enrollees” never used Audible’s services and that Audible either knew or should have been aware of the widespread problem, given numerous complaints on public forums and consumer watchdog sites. Despite this knowledge, Audible is accused of failing to correct the practice because it generated revenue. Additionally, Audible allegedly restricted refunds, making it difficult for customers to recover payments, and was therefore unjustly enriched by retaining subscription fees from customers who had never agreed to join. The plaintiffs seek restitution and disgorgement of these funds as relief.

In Heck v. Amazon.com Inc., the plaintiff alleges that Amazon and its subsidiary Audible automatically enrolled her in an Audible membership without her knowledge or consent after she selected the “No-Rush Shipping” option for Amazon Prime orders, which provided digital rewards.^[1] Heck claims that she was never informed that redeeming these rewards would result in an Audible trial that would automatically convert into a paid subscription, nor did she receive clear communications about the terms, cancellation policy, or how to opt out. She further alleges that Amazon had exclusive knowledge of this enrollment process and failed to disclose it, creating a situation in which she was charged $14.95 per month for services she did not knowingly subscribe to. The lawsuit asserts violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and the Auto-Renewal Law (ARL), focusing on non-disclosure, lack of affirmative consent, and the economic harm caused by these automatic charges. Relief sought includes damages and restitution for unauthorized subscription fees, highlighting the alleged deceptive practices and failure to obtain informed consent prior to billing.