- Surfshark has been beaten by collective claim on alleged “illegal” renewal fees
- A Californian client accused Surfshark of registering him automatically in renewal without his consent
- The most popular VPN suppliers use similar Automatic renewal systems: Practice lawyers claim to go against the California Consumption Law
A Californian client has dragged Surfshark to the Court, accusing VPN’s supplier of accusing him allegedly “illegal” self-harm fees.
The plaintiff Arvin García filed a collective claim against Surfshark in the Central District Court of California on July 17, arguing that VPN’s firm registered it in three renewals of one year’s plans without its consent. Garcia has presented the case forward for him and for all other consumers in California who were charged by illegal automatic renewal rates.
Despite a handful of exceptions, most of the best VPNs in the market operate their subscriptions according to similar automatic renewal systems. Two more suppliers, Nordvpn and Expressvpn, face, in fact, that face similar complaints in the US.
Are you violating Surfshark’s law to California?
As indicated in the lawsuit, Garcia bought a two -year subscription for the service of the Virtual Private Network (VPN) in May 2020, believing that he was making a unique purchase.
However, after the plan expired, “without him knowing and without his consent, Surfshark registered him in a renewal plan automatically,” says the demand.
Surfshark supposedly accused Garcia for annual renovations in May 2022, 2023 and 2024, automatic charges that, according to the lawyer’s lawyers, “were illegal and should be reimbursed.”
Specifically, lawyers argue that Surfshark is breaking their obligations under the Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) of California. The law requires that companies that adopt automatic renewal payments provide “clear and conspicuous” disseminations on the automatic renewal plan and obtain an “affirmative consent” to register consumers. Surfshark, says demand, violated these terms of “multiple ways.”
Surfshark is also accused of violating the false advertising law “by disseminating deceptive ads about the automatic renewal nature of Surfshark plans,” lawyers wrote.
This demand from July 2025 follows similar accusations filed against Surfshark in 2024, always under the California law.
Techradar has approached Sursfhark to obtain comments, but we are still waiting for an answer to the time of publication.
Should VPN Ax Ax renewal plans?
Surfshark is far from being the first popular provider of VPN to face legal problems in the US. Uu. About the allegedly misleading price of renewal.
ExpressvPN also faces a class action in California at this time, in fact, after being beaten with a similar legal complaint in June 2025.
While NordvPN has been taken to court on alleged “illegal and misleading” self -evidence in at least four United States states so far.
The Wittels Mcinturff Palikovic law firm filed legal complaints on behalf of four former NordvPN clients since April 2024, and now urges all NordvPN users who were charged for a subscription that they did not want to present themselves.
The same law firm has previously opened investigations on automatic registration practices against Expressvpn, together with Proton VPN and private Internet access (PIA). However, lawyers did not file any lawsuits against these suppliers.
We have to wait to see what the judges will decide, but these legal actions clearly indicate that a change in how VPN companies manage their payment subscriptions. The question now is whether suppliers are willing to amend their business model and abandon automatic renewal plans for good.
