The FTC’s lawsuit against Vonage revealed a troubling reality: the internet phone service provider had deliberately made it nearly impossible for customers to cancel their subscriptions. Vonage required customers to cancel only through a live phone agent—even though they could sign up online, through apps, or via email. When customers tried to reach the cancellation line, they faced obscured contact information, limited availability, unfulfilled promises of callbacks, and continued charges even after requesting cancellation.
The FTC’s November 2022 settlement forced Vonage to pay $100 million in refunds to 389,106 customers harmed by these practices, with the FTC distributing nearly the full amount by October 2023. Understanding these dark patterns matters whether you’re a Vonage customer, use other subscription services, or simply want to know your legal rights.
Table of Contents
- How Did Vonage Make It Impossible to Cancel?
- Why Was This a Legal Problem?
- What Did Customers Experience?
- How Much Money Did Consumers Get Back?
- What Must Vonage Do Going Forward?
- Can You Still Take Legal Action?
- Why Does This Matter Beyond Vonage?
How Did Vonage Make It Impossible to Cancel?
Vonage’s cancellation trap worked through a coordinated set of obstacles. Starting in 2017, the company required customers to cancel subscriptions only by calling a live retention agent—a tactic that immediately created friction compared to signing up, which customers could do online in minutes. To make matters worse, Vonage hid the cancellation phone number on its website, making it difficult for customers to find the number without extensive searching or going through support channels. Once customers found the number, they encountered another barrier: limited hours.
The cancellation line operated on a restricted schedule that didn’t match standard customer service hours, forcing some customers to call during inconvenient times or wait until their next available window. Vonage also promised callbacks to cancellation requests during unavailable hours but frequently failed to deliver, leaving customers hanging. Even when customers successfully reached an agent and requested cancellation, Vonage often continued charging their accounts—customers would request to cancel, receive confirmation, then discover charges appearing on their next billing cycle. The company also levied early termination fees that weren’t clearly disclosed when customers signed up, catching people by surprise when they tried to leave.
Why Was This a Legal Problem?
The ftc pursued Vonage under ROSCA—the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act—which prohibits deceptive practices in connection with negative option services (subscriptions that continue until the customer actively cancels). ROSCA requires that companies: obtain clear, informed consent before charging customers; disclose subscription terms transparently at the point of sale; and make cancellation as easy as signing up. Vonage violated all three requirements. What made Vonage’s practices particularly egregious was the intentional design.
These weren’t accidental problems or technical glitches—the company deliberately engineered obstacles to frustration to discourage cancellations. This kind of deliberate obstruction is called a “dark pattern” in legal and consumer protection circles. However, not every inconvenient cancellation process violates ROSCA. If a company requires a phone call for cancellations but makes the number easy to find, operates reasonable hours, answers consistently, and doesn’t continue charging after customers request to cancel, it may survive legal scrutiny. Vonage crossed the line by stacking multiple obstacles together and continuing to charge after cancellation requests.
What Did Customers Experience?
Real Vonage customers dealt with frustration at every turn. A customer who signed up online for internet phone service discovered they could cancel only by phone. After finding the obscured phone number and calling during limited hours, they waited on hold. When they reached an agent, the retention team tried to convince them to stay rather than processing the cancellation smoothly. Some customers reported that after explicitly requesting cancellation from a live agent, they continued to see charges on their credit card statements weeks later.
One common scenario involved customers requesting cancellation, receiving a confirmation number or email, then checking their billing statement only to find Vonage had continued charging them—sometimes for months after the cancellation request. Early termination fees added insult to injury. Customers who had signed up without realizing they’d committed to a long-term contract discovered unexpected $200 to $400 cancellation fees when they tried to leave. These fees weren’t displayed prominently during sign-up, buried in terms of service that customers didn’t carefully review when enrolling in what seemed like a simple service switch. The combination of all these tactics trapped customers who simply wanted to switch providers or discontinue the service.
How Much Money Did Consumers Get Back?
The FTC distributed nearly $100 million in refunds to 389,106 customers by October 2023, with the average refund coming to approximately $256 per consumer. The refund amounts varied based on how much each customer had been overcharged. Some customers received smaller refunds if they’d only been charged excessively for a short period; others received larger amounts if Vonage had continued charging them for months after cancellation requests or hit them with substantial early termination fees they shouldn’t have been charged.
The FTC handled the distribution process directly rather than requiring customers to file claims. If you were a Vonage customer affected by these practices between 2017 and the November 2022 settlement, the FTC attempted to identify you through Vonage’s customer records and send refunds automatically via check or direct deposit. However, if you didn’t receive a refund or believe you were harmed, you have legal options to pursue additional compensation, which we cover in later sections.
What Must Vonage Do Going Forward?
The settlement imposed strict requirements on Vonage’s business practices to prevent future harm. The company must now obtain consumers’ express, informed consent before charging them—meaning no more silent automatic renewals or unclear enrollment language. Vonage must allow cancellation using the same method customers used to sign up, whether that’s online, through an app, by email, or through other channels. This eliminates the company’s previous strategy of easy sign-up but hard cancellation.
Vonage must also eliminate dark patterns designed to frustrate cancellation attempts, meaning no more hidden phone numbers, limited availability, failed callback promises, or continued billing after cancellation requests. The settlement requires transparent disclosure of subscription plan terms at the point of sale, so customers know what they’re signing up for and what it will cost to leave. A significant limitation of this settlement is that it applies specifically to Vonage’s internet phone business going forward. If you were harmed before the settlement took effect, you’re covered by the refund distribution; if you’re harmed after these requirements are in place, your recourse depends on proving Vonage violated the settlement terms, which may require another enforcement action or private lawsuit.
Can You Still Take Legal Action?
Customers harmed by Vonage’s practices weren’t limited to the automatic refund distribution. Individual consumers could file claims if they believed they were owed more than what the FTC’s automatic distribution provided. The FTC settlement included a claim filing process where customers could submit documentation showing overcharges, early termination fees, or other damages.
Successful claimants received additional compensation beyond what the FTC distributed automatically. Customers might also pursue claims for damages beyond the FTC settlement in certain circumstances. For example, if you incurred consequential damages—such as phone service interruptions that affected your business or family—you could explore whether additional legal remedies were available. The key was documenting your specific situation: how long Vonage continued charging after your cancellation request, how much you were overcharged, and what impact those charges had on you.
Why Does This Matter Beyond Vonage?
The Vonage settlement set an important precedent for how federal regulators view dark patterns in subscription services. The FTC’s enforcement action signaled that companies can’t simply hide behind the fine print or claim technical limitations prevent easy cancellation. This case influenced enforcement patterns against other companies offering subscriptions—from gyms to streaming services to software providers—reinforcing that ROSCA compliance is non-negotiable.
The settlement also empowered state attorneys general and private litigants. Several states opened their own investigations into subscription cancellation practices after the FTC’s Vonage action, and consumers became more aware of their legal rights. Moving forward, companies face heightened scrutiny on how they handle cancellations, and the Vonage case remains the gold standard example of what the FTC considers an illegal dark pattern—requiring companies to remove obstacles and make cancellation genuinely straightforward.