Search Results

Chegg has agreed to pay $7.5 million after the Federal Trade Commission found the company made it easy to sign up for a subscription but hard to cancel. This issue goes beyond just one company’s website. The FTC reports that complaints about tricky subscription practices have increased for five years, reaching almost 70 per day in 2024, up from 42 per day in 2021. A 2024 international review of 642 subscription sites and apps found that nearly 76% used at least one possible dark pattern, and almost 67% used more than one. While this does not mean Chegg started the trend, it explains why regulators are concerned: when signing up is simple but canceling is difficult, the design itself can trap people. The FTC says Chegg’s cancellation process confused customers, made them take longer, pushed them to keep or pause their subscriptions, and sometimes kept charging them after they tried to cancel. What makes this case notable is its size. Chegg is not a small company with just a few complaints. In the last quarter of 2024, Chegg had 3.6 million subscription service users and earned $128.5 million from those services, even though that part of the business was already shrinking compared to the previous year. Chegg’s main business was education subscriptions such as Chegg Study, Chegg Study Pack, Chegg Writing, Chegg Math, Mathway, EasyBib, BibMe, Citation Machine, Cite This For Me, and Busuu. These services targeted students, parents, and anyone needing help with homework, writing, citations, math, or language learning. However, the FTC says the trouble began when customers wanted to cancel. According to the FTC, customers could try to cancel online or by contacting customer service, but neither option made it easy to stop recurring charges. Online, users had to log in, go through several account pages, find the right order section, and look for a cancellation link that was harder to find than the buttons urging them to stay. Until around January 2023, the FTC says mobile users could not cancel on a mobile browser and were told to use a desktop or laptop instead. Even after clicking “Cancel subscription,” the process was not finished. The FTC says Chegg Study users had to go through several screens, including a discount offer, a pause-subscription page, a cancellation survey, and a warning about losing benefits. The options to keep or pause the subscription were bigger and easier to see, while the cancellation path was harder to find. This is where the case appears less about convenience and more about making cancellation difficult on purpose. The FTC also reports that many people thought they had canceled but kept getting charged. Some contacted customer service but still saw charges. Others had to request refunds separately because the online cancellation process did not offer that option. In many cases, Chegg refused refunds or only gave partial refunds, according to the FTC. This is important because Subscription Services were a major part of Chegg’s business. In 2024, they brought in $549.2 million, with 6.6 million students subscribing, even though both numbers dropped 14% from the previous year. I would not say the filings legally prove “greed.” That would be too strong unless there is clear evidence of intent. Still, the financial details make the incentive clear: when a company relies on recurring subscription revenue, every failed cancellation means more money stays with the company. The situation is more serious because the FTC says Chegg knew about the complaints. Thousands of cancellation complaints reportedly went to an internal email account called “Letters to Dan,” named after former CEO Dan Rosensweig. The FTC says senior leaders and managers saw and discussed these complaints. At one point, a Chegg executive reportedly replied to concerns about billing and cancellation complaints by saying, “Nothing we didn’t know / haven’t seen.” That comment is important because it suggests this was not just a website error. The FTC says Chegg had years of warning signs, including customer complaints, refund problems, surprise charges, and internal talks about the cancellation process. Despite feedback and knowing people were having trouble, the company did not make the cancellation link easier to find, according to the FTC. The legal issue centers on the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, also known as ROSCA, and the FTC Act. These laws matter because subscription companies cannot make signup easy, billing automatic, and cancellation confusing. If a company is going to charge people repeatedly until they cancel, the cancellation process has to be simple, clear, and effective. If the proposed order is approved, Chegg will have to pay $7.5 million, which the FTC says will be used for consumer refunds. As of April 27, 2026, there is no Chegg refund application available yet. The FTC’s Chegg case page still lists the case as pending, and the FTC says final orders only take effect when approved and signed by a district court judge. This does not mean consumers are too late. They should keep an eye on official FTC refund channels and avoid emails, texts, or links that claim to help recover Chegg money. The message for consumers is clear: if you have to go through several pages after clicking cancel, if the “keep subscription” button is bigger than the cancellation option, if a pause offer looks like an exit, or if charges continue after you cancel, these are warning signs. The FTC’s message is simple: companies cannot make it easy to sign up but hard to cancel. SOURCES Federal Trade Commission. Chegg, Inc. Federal Trade Commission, 15 Sept. 2025. Federal Trade Commission. “Ed Tech Provider Chegg to Pay $7.5 Million to Settle FTC Allegations Concerning Unlawful Cancellation Practices.” Federal Trade Commission, 15 Sept. 2025. Federal Trade Commission. “Does Your Business Offer Subscription Services? Learn about the FTC’s Settlement with Chegg.” Federal Trade Commission Business Blog, 15 Sept. 2025. Chegg, Inc. Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2024. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2025. Chegg, Inc. “Chegg Reports 2024 Fourth Quarter and Full Year Financial Results.” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 24 Feb. 2025.

FTC Forces Refunds and Overhauls Subscription Practices at a National Grocery Platform The Federal Trade Commission secured a federal court order requiring Instacart to pay $60 million in consumer refunds  and permanently change how it markets, enrolls, and bills consumers for subscription services. The Company Operating the Platform Maplebear Inc., doing business as Instacart , is a U.S.-based technology company that operates an online platform allowing consumers to purchase groceries and retail goods from local stores for delivery or pickup. Instacart acts as an intermediary. Consumers place orders through Instacart’s website or mobile app. Retailers fulfill the orders. Instacart coordinates payment processing, delivery logistics, and customer-facing services. The FTC named only the corporate entity  as the defendant.No individual executives were charged. The court order applies to Instacart and to its officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and others acting on its behalf who receive notice of the order. This ensures the injunction binds the people who design, approve, and operate Instacart’s consumer-facing systems. How Instacart Charged Consumers Instacart bills consumers for two categories of charges. First, consumers pay for the groceries or goods  purchased from participating retailers. That money largely flows to the retailer. Second, Instacart charges service-related fees , which may include delivery fees, service fees, priority or express charges, and optional subscription memberships known as Instacart+ . Instacart+ offered benefits such as reduced delivery fees and promotional savings. Consumers could enroll through monthly or annual subscription plans. The annual plan involved a larger upfront charge , rather than smaller recurring monthly payments. According to the FTC, Instacart promoted subscription offers directly inside normal shopping and checkout flows. Consumers encountered prompts like “free delivery” or “try free delivery” while completing routine grocery orders. From a mechanical standpoint, these prompts appeared during standard ordering steps. The subscription enrollment was not always presented as a separate purchase decision. Consumers believed they were approving a delivery option for a single order, when the flow actually initiated a negative-option subscription  that could convert into recurring monthly or annual charges. This distinction matters. Under federal law, a negative option means a consumer will be charged unless they take action to cancel. That structure triggers specific disclosure and consent requirements. Where the FTC Says the Process Broke Down The FTC alleges Instacart violated Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act by charging consumers for subscriptions without express informed consent . According to the Complaint and Order, the problems were not limited to one screen or one word choice. The FTC identified failures across multiple decision points. First, subscription terms were not clearly disclosed . The agency alleges Instacart did not clearly and conspicuously disclose material terms such as the cost, frequency, renewal timing, and deadlines to avoid charges before consumers submitted billing information. Second, disclosures were not placed next to consent . The FTC emphasizes placement. Required disclosures must appear immediately adjacent to the button or mechanism used to capture consent. The agency alleges Instacart placed key terms below the fold, behind expandable text, or in dense blocks of language separate from the action button. Third, annual subscriptions were charged without consent . The FTC alleges many consumers were enrolled and charged for annual Instacart+ memberships  even though they did not knowingly agree to an annual recurring charge. This annual charge is separate from per-order service fees and was a central focus of the enforcement action. Fourth, marketing created misleading impressions . Promises such as “free delivery” and “100% money-back guarantee” were presented without clearly disclosing material limitations. The FTC alleges consumers were led to believe refunds were broader or simpler than they actually were. Fifth, cancellation and refunds were not straightforward . The agency alleges cancellation paths were not clearly presented and refund conditions were misrepresented or difficult to locate. Under ROSCA, consumers must be able to stop recurring charges easily and understand how refunds work. From the FTC’s perspective, these were not technical errors. They were design and presentation choices that shaped how consumers understood what they were agreeing to. The Court’s Order, Refunds, and Compliance Rules To resolve the case, the court entered a stipulated order . The order requires Instacart to pay $60,000,000  to the FTC within 14 days. The funds are designated for consumer redress , including refunds to consumers who were charged for Instacart+ without express informed consent. Instacart must relinquish any claim to the funds and may not challenge how the FTC administers the refund program. If refunds cannot be fully distributed, remaining funds may be used for related equitable relief or deposited into the U.S. Treasury. Beyond money, the order imposes permanent conduct restrictions. Instacart is prohibited from: · Misrepresenting the existence of a subscription or negative option feature · Misrepresenting subscription costs, renewal, cancellation, or refund terms · Charging consumers without express, affirmative consent Instacart is required to: · Clearly and conspicuously disclose all material subscription terms · Place disclosures immediately adjacent to the consent mechanism · Obtain express informed consent before charging · Maintain records, submit compliance reports, and distribute the order internally These requirements convert the FTC’s allegations into enforceable operational rules. Where the Case Stands Now The matter is resolved  through the stipulated order entered on December 18, 2025. Instacart did not admit or deny the FTC’s allegations, except for jurisdictional facts. The injunction is permanent. The refund obligation is mandatory. The FTC retains authority to monitor compliance and enforce the order. Future violations would constitute violations of a federal court order. SOURCE Source: FTC Complaint, Stipulated Order, and Case Summary — Federal Trade Commission v. Maplebear Inc., d/b/a Instacart   FTC-Instacart-Researhing