A group of former Fabletics members have proposed a class action, alleging that the activewear brand’s member benefits aren’t as “fab” as they’re cracked up to be.
The proposed class action, filed March 12 in a California court, alleges that Fabletics has overblown the value of its VIP Membership Program, that it violates California law by allowing members’ credits to expire after a year and that it violates California law by illegally renewing memberships without express consent.
Related Stories
A Fabletics membership costs $59.95 monthly, and a consumer’s card is charged on the sixth day of each month if they don’t “skip the month” between the first and fifth of the month. If a member is charged for the month, they receive what the complaint calls a “promotional member credit,” which, per the plaintiffs, “purports to allow a program member to purchase any single item or two-piece outfit from defendant for up to $100.”
But the problem, the plaintiffs claim, lies in the fact that “the vast majority of the individual items or two-piece outfits on offer—nearly all, in fact—do not even exceed the cost of the $59.95 monthly membership fee,” which they allege makes it “nearly impossible for a program member to use a promotional member credit to purchase a single item or outfit exceeding $59.95, much less $100.”
Part of the reason for that, the plaintiffs further note, is that Fabletics uses a “manipulative reference price” on many items. A screenshot from Fabletics’ site included in the complaint shows a sports bra, originally priced at $49.95 on sale for $9.98 to members. That further compounds the plaintiffs’ issue with not receiving the promised value for their membership fee, they allege.
But the value of the membership isn’t the only item at issue; the plaintiffs allege that Fabletics has violated California’s Automatic Renewal Law, which stipulates that the terms of a membership must be laid out to consumers in a “clear and conspicuous” way prior to purchase.
According to the plaintiffs, “[Fabletics] has uniformly failed to disclose key, statutorily required automatic renewal terms, in a clear and conspicuous manner prior to the customer’s completion of the order process.”
They go on to allege that Fabletics does not properly disclose that its membership renews monthly, how to cancel the membership and other details, thus constituting an “intentionally inconspicuous” approach to bringing consumers into the program.
Further, the plaintiffs allege that Fabletics has breached a statute in California law that prohibits putting an expiration date on a gift card.
They claim that the credits issued to members by Fabletics constitute “a gift certificate worth $100,” and that, despite that, the credits expire after 12 months. The plaintiffs believe that such a window “forces consumers to redeem the gift certificates in an unreasonably short amount of time or risk the promotional membership credits expiring, thus limiting customer choice to items and styles then on offer.”
Plaintiffs have proposed one main class and two subclasses. The main class, if certified, would be defined as, “all persons nationwide who, within the applicable statutory period, up to and including the date of the final judgment in this action, purchased a VIP Membership Program membership.”
The first subclass, called the “Expired Value Subclass,” expands to include those who had credits expire, and the second subclass, named the “Florida subclass” applies to those who purchased a membership and are Florida residents. The plaintiffs estimate that the number of people that would be included in the three classes would “be in at least the thousands of persons.”
By the end of the complaint, plaintiffs allege that Fabletics has engaged in unfair competition and false advertising, broken California’s statute regarding gift cards and more. Thus, they have requested that the case’s judge certify the class, allowing the lawsuit to proceed, and that they receive monetary damages for Fabletics’ alleged wrongdoing.
Fabletics did not return Sourcing Journal’s request for comment on the complaint.
