KradleMyPet.com Fails to Inform Consumers of Automatic Subscription Enrollment, Class Action Alleges

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit claims that KradleMyPet.com fails to clearly disclose to consumers the terms of the subscription renewal plan they are automatically enrolled in after purchase and makes it unnecessarily difficult to cancel.

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

The 32-page lawsuit against Kradle contends that the online pets supply retailer automatically enrolls customers in repeating subscription charges when they make a purchase from KradleMyPet.com without presenting the terms of the agreement in a “clear and conspicuous” manner, as well as clearly disclosing the cancellation policy, in violation of the California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL).

Under the ARL, the case relays, online retailers offering automatically renewing subscriptions to California consumers must explicitly state the offer terms near the location where consumers click to agree or consent to enrollment, and relatedly obtain their affirmative consent before making any charges related to the subscriptions. Moreover, the ARL also covers the cancellation process, the complaint explains, and requires retailers to provide an acknowledgment containing the agreement terms and identifying a clear, cost-effective, and easy-to-use means of canceling subscriptions.

Related Reading: Historic $2.5B Amazon Prime FTC Settlement Offers Major Refunds for Consumers Nationwide

According to the lawsuit, the disclosure explaining the automatic renewal terms on KradleMyPet.com appears in “minuscule [sic], inconspicuous font” above or below the large payment button a user must click upon checkout, which goes against the ARL’s requirements that disclosures appear in a font larger than the surrounding text or in a contrasting color, font, or type.

“The language [in the checkout disclosure] was, and did, mislead consumers about the true nature of the recurring charges,” the lawsuit claims.

Deceptive design tactics that obscure subscription terms, such as those alleged in the lawsuit, are referred to as dark patterns, which deliberately make it more difficult for consumers to understand and cancel subscription plans.

If a company violates the ARL, the case explains, all subsequent shipments sent to a consumer are considered “unconditional gifts” that the consumer has no legal obligation to return and may “use or dispose … in any manner he or she sees fit without any obligation whatsoever on the consumer’s part to the business.”

The plaintiff, a California resident, purchased two “CBD Sleepy CLEANZzz Dental Hard Chew” products from KradleMyPet.com on September 7, 2025 for $26.32 and, unbeknownst to her, enrolled in a subscription program that assessed her payment method a recurring charge of $26.34 every six weeks, the suit says. After her subscription charge in December 2025, the plaintiff allegedly was able to cancel her subscription.

The Kradle class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who were charged a renewal fee for a Kradle subscription during the applicable statute of limitations period.

Looking for current class action lawsuits to join? Check out ClassAction.org’s class action lawsuit list.