Cameo Class Action Lawsuit Says Platform Employs Illegal Drip Pricing for Personalized Video Messages

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit alleges that the Cameo app unlawfully fails to disclose the true cost of personalized video messages and instead utilizes unlawful drip pricing to tack on a junk service fee at the very end of the checkout process.

Want to stay in the loop on class action lawsuits that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter.

The 22-page lawsuit accuses Cameo operator Baron App, Inc. of enriching itself by adding to each transaction a 10 percent service fee that is not reflected upfront in the advertised prices of the personalized celebrity message videos sold on the platform. Per the complaint, the Cameo service fee is instead revealed only on the final checkout page in small, faded text.

“At this point, consumers have already selected a celebrity, customized the video message, entered their email, and filled out their payment information,” the suit says of when the final cost of a Cameo message is revealed. “And they have done all this based on the lower, up-front price.”

The case claims that Cameo, by way of the alleged drip-pricing scheme, has harmed consumers by luring them with fictitious low prices to create artificial demand, only to then tack on a mandatory junk charge late in the transaction that many might not even notice.

Cameo is an online platform that allows consumers to purchase videos from celebrities and other public figures that can be personalized to include specific messaging, typically at a cost of a few hundred dollars, depending on the figure, the filing explains. Given the personalized nature of Cameo videos, the purchase process can be rather involved as consumers must browse through celebrities, select who they want, describe who the video is for, and enter any request details, all before beginning the checkout process, the case shares.

According to the complaint, as consumers proceed through these stages, there are multiple disclosures indicating that the final price may increase, but not because of any service fees. For instance, a “+” symbol found near the price, as consumers customize a video request, suggests that the price may be higher for higher video quality or a more elaborate video, the suit states. Similarly, the lawsuit says that another disclosure after the consumer has initiated checkout indicates that the “[f]inal price [will be] calculated after selecting delivery speed,” suggesting that the price will increase for faster delivery.

It is only at the very end of checkout, after a consumer has selected their celebrity, made personalization requests and provided contact and payment information, that the service fee is shown in fine, faded print at the bottom of a “cluttered” page, the class action lawsuit says.

Related Reading: Junk Fees, Hidden Fees, Drip Fees Lawsuits & Arbitrations

“If consumers do notice the service fee or the increase in the total price, they are pressured to just go through with it (and eat the service fee) so as not to waste their previous effort,” the complaint reads. “This drives consumers to pay service fees that they would not otherwise pay, if the higher price was disclosed up front.”

The case reiterates that the pressure consumers feel to complete a transaction is why drip pricing can be effective, and also why it is illegal. In California, the suit relays, drip pricing “always has been” illegal under the state’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, but in July 2024, the practice also became illegal under the Honest Pricing Law, an amendment to the state’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The Cameo class action lawsuit seeks to represent all California consumers who purchased a personal video or message from Cameo during the applicable statute of limitations period and paid a service fee.

Check out ClassAction.org’s lawsuit list for current class action lawsuits.