Yes, members may have potential claims to review if they were charged for their Costco membership renewal without receiving proper notice in the timeframe required by California law. The lawsuit, filed in March 2026 by California resident Russel George II, alleges that Costco violated the state’s Automatic Renewal Law by sending renewal notices 60 days before charging customers’ cards—far exceeding California’s required 15-to-45-day window. If you received a Costco membership renewal notice and were subsequently charged without clear disclosure of the terms, amount, and cancellation instructions, you may fall within the scope of this class action claim.
The case specifically involves Costco’s Gold Star membership, priced at $65, where members like George were notified of upcoming charges in a way that allegedly failed to meet California’s strict consumer protection standards. The lawsuit is still in early stages, with a preliminary hearing scheduled for June 2026, and no class has been certified yet. This means the case has not been dismissed and remains active, giving potential class members a window to monitor the proceedings and determine if they qualify.
Table of Contents
- What Are the Core Claims in the Costco Membership Auto-Renewal Lawsuit?
- How Does California’s Automatic Renewal Law Apply to Costco?
- What Disclosures Did Costco Allegedly Fail to Provide?
- Who Is Potentially Eligible to Join This Class Action?
- What Are the Common Issues with Renewal Notice Timing?
- What Happens Next in the Costco Auto-Renewal Case?
- How Do These Issues Compare to Other Auto-Renewal Cases?
What Are the Core Claims in the Costco Membership Auto-Renewal Lawsuit?
The lawsuit makes four distinct legal claims against costco, all rooted in California consumer protection statutes. The primary allegation centers on violations of California’s Automatic Renewal Law, which imposes strict requirements on how businesses must notify customers before charging them for recurring memberships. Beyond that single statute, Costco also faces allegations under the California False advertising Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law—each targeting different aspects of how the company handled membership renewals.
Russel George II’s complaint centers on the fact that Costco sent him a renewal notice 60 days before charging his card for a $65 Gold Star membership in January 2026. This is the critical factual detail: the law required notice between 15 and 45 days before charging. By notifying him 60 days in advance, Costco allegedly put the reminder so far ahead that George either forgot about it or lost track of when the charge would actually occur. Many consumers face this exact scenario—a renewal notice arrives, they file it away mentally, and then months later they’re surprised by a charge they vaguely remember agreeing to but didn’t fully process.
How Does California’s Automatic Renewal Law Apply to Costco?
California’s Automatic Renewal Law, found in Business and Professions Code Section 17602, was designed to prevent companies from tricking consumers into recurring charges through vague or misleading enrollment. The law requires that before a customer is charged for an automatic renewal, the business must provide clear and conspicuous disclosures of the material terms—including the renewal price, the frequency of charges, and the cancellation mechanism. Additionally, the law mandates that the renewal notice arrive within a specific window: no fewer than 15 days before the charge and no more than 45 days before. Costco’s 60-day notice period allegedly violates this window by being too early. The reasoning behind the 15-to-45-day requirement is practical: customers need enough notice to plan and remember the upcoming charge, but not so much notice that they forget about it entirely or lose the notification.
A 60-day notice essentially contradicts the law’s intent. By comparison, imagine getting notified in January that a charge will hit in March—by the time March arrives, the notification has faded from memory, making it harder for consumers to exercise their right to cancel before being charged. The law also requires that the business obtain clear, affirmative consent to the automatic renewal before charging the customer. This means a separate acknowledgment of the renewal terms, not just burying them in a terms-of-service document. One limitation of class action lawsuits in this area is that some members may have actively consented to renewal and simply failed to cancel before the deadline, even if the notice was legally defective. The court will need to identify which customers’ renewals were genuinely non-compliant versus those who had ample opportunity to cancel but didn’t.
What Disclosures Did Costco Allegedly Fail to Provide?
According to the lawsuit, the renewal notice that Costco sent lacked three critical pieces of information that California law requires. First, the notice did not clearly state the renewal terms—meaning customers didn’t see in plain language exactly what they were paying for and what their membership would cover after renewal. Second, the charge amount was not clearly disclosed in the renewal notice itself. Third, the notice failed to provide clear and simple cancellation instructions that would allow a customer to opt out before being charged.
Consider a real-world example: a customer receives a notice from Costco that says something like “Your membership will renew soon” but doesn’t explicitly state “$65 will be charged to your account on January 15th” or “To cancel, call this number or use this online form by January 10th.” The absence of this specificity is what the lawsuit alleges occurred. The California Automatic Renewal Law requires that these terms be “clear and conspicuous”—not hidden in footnotes or buried in a separate document, but prominently displayed in the renewal notification itself. A major limitation in pursuing these claims is proving what notice each individual customer received and when they received it. Costco handles millions of memberships, and if the company can demonstrate that it sent notices to most customers within the legal window for most renewals, it may argue that George’s case is an isolated error rather than a systemic violation. However, if discovery in the lawsuit reveals that Costco routinely sends notices 60 days in advance as a standard practice, that would strengthen the claim that this was an intentional or negligent policy, not an accidental omission.
Who Is Potentially Eligible to Join This Class Action?
The class definition will ultimately be established by the court, but based on the lawsuit’s allegations, the class likely includes any California resident who had a Costco Gold Star membership that was automatically renewed and who received a renewal notice more than 45 days before being charged. The lawsuit specifically arose from a renewal in January 2026, and Costco has millions of Gold Star members in California. However, not everyone with a Costco membership will qualify—the class is limited to those who received defective renewal notices, not all members. If you were a Costco member in California during the period when these allegedly defective notices were being sent, you should monitor the case for official class notice. Once a class is certified (if it is), Costco will be required to notify all class members via email, postal mail, or both.
That notification will contain detailed instructions on how to file a claim, the deadline for doing so, and information about any settlement negotiations. Class members typically have a specific window—often 60 to 90 days from the notice date—to submit a proof of claim. A key comparison: this is different from a settlement where only those who actively claim are compensated. In some class actions, unclaimed settlement funds go to a cy pres recipient (a related charity or organization). The court will determine how any settlement is structured if one is reached. Additionally, be aware that if you join the class, you will likely be bound by any judgment or settlement, meaning you cannot pursue your own separate lawsuit against Costco for the same claims—that’s the trade-off for being part of a class action rather than suing individually.
What Are the Common Issues with Renewal Notice Timing?
The 60-day notice issue highlights a broader problem with how subscription and membership-based businesses handle renewals. Many companies intentionally send renewal notices early—30, 60, or even 90 days before the charge date—reasoning that earlier notice is more consumer-friendly. However, California law views this differently, recognizing that too-early notice actually harms consumers by causing them to forget or misplace the notification. The 15-to-45-day window is California’s attempt to strike a balance: enough notice for customers to prepare, but not so much that the notification loses its effectiveness.
A critical warning: if you receive a renewal notice and intend to cancel, do not assume you have months to do so. The cancellation deadline mentioned in the notice is the hard stop for your right to prevent the charge. Many consumers assume that a 60-day notice means they have 60 days to cancel, when in fact the notice date and cancellation deadline may only allow for a narrow window. If Costco’s renewal notice didn’t clearly state the exact cancellation deadline, that is itself part of the alleged violation.
What Happens Next in the Costco Auto-Renewal Case?
The preliminary hearing is scheduled for June 2026, though the litigation started with the complaint filing in March 2026. At this early stage, the court will consider whether Costco’s motion to dismiss has any merit and whether the case can proceed. The class has not yet been certified, meaning the court has not officially determined what group of consumers this lawsuit represents.
Certification typically occurs later in the litigation, after the parties have exchanged initial evidence and after the court is convinced that the claims are common to a group of class members. From the June 2026 preliminary hearing forward, several paths are possible: the case could be dismissed if the court finds Costco’s arguments persuasive; the case could proceed to class certification; or the parties might enter settlement negotiations. If a settlement is reached before trial, class members will receive notice of the settlement terms and an opportunity to object or opt out. Any settlement would need to be approved by the court, which will consider whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate for the class.
How Do These Issues Compare to Other Auto-Renewal Cases?
Auto-renewal lawsuits have become increasingly common as states, including California, have strengthened their consumer protection laws. Similar cases have been filed against other membership-based businesses, subscription services, and online retailers over defective renewal notices. For example, other litigation has focused on companies that failed to clearly disclose cancellation instructions or that made it deliberately difficult for consumers to opt out—requirements that California law explicitly forbids.
The structure of the Costco case—focusing on notice timing rather than on cancellation difficulty—is somewhat more specific but follows the same legal framework. The financial stakes in these cases vary widely depending on the number of affected class members and the size of the damages awarded or settled. In some successful auto-renewal class actions, members have received between $5 and $50 per claim, though the exact amount depends on how many people join the class and what the settlement or judgment permits. The earlier a consumer learns about a class action and monitors it, the better positioned they are to file a timely claim once class notice is issued.