A $62 million class action settlement confirmed what millions of Noom users suspected all along: the popular weight loss app was deliberately making it difficult to cancel subscriptions and was enrolling people in expensive annual plans without obtaining clear consent. The lawsuit, *Nichols, et al. v. Noom Inc., et al.*, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleged that Noom lured customers with “risk-free” trial periods, then automatically locked them into Healthy Weight Subscription plans costing anywhere from $45 to $400.
A former senior Noom software engineer went on record in the suit stating that canceling Noom was “difficult by design” and that the system was intentionally built to generate income from customers who failed to cancel before their trial expired. The settlement, which received final court approval in July 2022, affected approximately 2 million users who purchased autorenewing subscriptions through Noom’s website or mobile app between May 12, 2016 and October 6, 2020. Depending on how much they used the app after being charged, class members received average payments ranging from roughly $30 to $167. Beyond the financial payout, the settlement forced Noom to overhaul its cancellation process and auto-renewal disclosures — changes that carry broader implications for how subscription-based apps operate.
Table of Contents
- What Did the Class Action Against Noom Claim About Enrolling Users in Annual Plans Without Clear Consent?
- How the $62 Million Settlement Was Divided Among 2 Million Affected Users
- Dark Patterns and the Design Tactics That Triggered the Lawsuit
- What Noom Was Required to Change About Its Subscription and Cancellation Process
- Limitations of the Settlement and Common Pitfalls for Class Members
- How This Case Compares to Other Subscription Trap Lawsuits
- What the Noom Settlement Signals for the Future of Subscription Services
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Did the Class Action Against Noom Claim About Enrolling Users in Annual Plans Without Clear Consent?
The central allegation was straightforward: Noom was accused of actively misrepresenting and failing to accurately disclose the true characteristics of its trial period and its automatic enrollment policy. Users who signed up for what they believed was a free or low-cost trial were not clearly informed that they would be automatically enrolled in a costly multi-month or annual subscription once the trial window closed. The lawsuit argued this amounted to a bait-and-switch — advertise a risk-free trial, then make the subsequent charges as hard to avoid as possible. What made the Noom case particularly striking was the testimony from inside the company.
A former senior software engineer stated plainly that the cancellation process was “difficult by design.” This was not a case of accidental poor UX or an oversight in the billing system. According to the suit, the friction was intentional. Users who wanted to cancel during their trial period were told to do so through a “coach” — but that coach allegedly did not respond before the trial expired, leaving customers on the hook for subscription charges they never intended to authorize. This pattern — offering an easy sign-up paired with a deliberately obstructed cancellation path — has become a textbook example of what regulators and legal scholars call “dark patterns.” The Noom case was specifically cited in legal commentary as a notable instance of deceptive UI design intended to manipulate users into unintended actions. Compare this to a gym membership that requires you to send a certified letter to cancel: the barrier exists not because it serves any legitimate business function, but because it prevents people from leaving.
How the $62 Million Settlement Was Divided Among 2 Million Affected Users
The total settlement was valued at $62 million, split between $56 million in cash and $6 million in subscription fee credits. The agreement was reached on February 14, 2022, with the court granting final approval in July of that year. Approximately 2 million users fell within the class period of May 12, 2016 through October 6, 2020, provided they had purchased an autorenewing subscription through Noom’s website or mobile app in the United States and had not already received a full refund. The payout was not uniform. The settlement created two subclasses with meaningfully different average payments. Subclass A included users who were charged but never completed enrollment or who did not use the app after the trial period ended — these members received an average payment of approximately $167.
Subclass B covered all other qualifying members and received an average of roughly $30. The logic behind this split makes sense: users who never even used the service they were charged for suffered a more clear-cut harm than those who at least got some use out of their subscription, even if they didn’t intend to pay for it. However, if you were a Noom user during this period but had already obtained a full refund directly from the company, you were excluded from the settlement class. This is a common limitation in consumer class actions — prior refunds typically disqualify you from additional recovery. It is also worth noting that $30 to $167 per person, while meaningful, represents a fraction of what many users were originally charged. Class action settlements rarely make plaintiffs completely whole, and this case was no exception.
Dark Patterns and the Design Tactics That Triggered the Lawsuit
The Noom lawsuit became a reference point in the growing legal and regulatory crackdown on dark patterns — deceptive design choices that steer users toward outcomes that benefit the company at the user’s expense. In Noom’s case, the dark pattern was a combination of several tactics: an easy, low-friction sign-up process paired with a cancellation path that required contacting a “coach” who was allegedly unresponsive, all wrapped in vague disclosures about what would happen when the trial ended. Consider the specific experience described in the lawsuit. A user downloads Noom, attracted by a free or low-cost trial. During sign-up, the terms of the auto-renewal are buried or unclear. When the user decides the app is not for them and tries to cancel, they discover there is no simple cancel button.
Instead, they are directed to reach out to a coach. The coach does not respond before the trial expires. The user is then charged $199 for an annual plan they never consciously agreed to. This sequence was not a one-off complaint — it was the pattern alleged across millions of accounts. The Federal Trade Commission has increasingly targeted these kinds of practices. In 2021, the FTC issued an enforcement policy statement warning companies that the use of dark patterns to trick consumers into subscribing could violate federal law. The Noom settlement landed right in the middle of this regulatory shift, serving as a concrete example of the financial consequences companies can face when their design choices cross the line from persuasive into deceptive.
What Noom Was Required to Change About Its Subscription and Cancellation Process
Beyond the $62 million payout, the settlement imposed specific business practice changes on Noom that arguably matter more to future users than the cash payments did to past ones. Noom was required to substantially enhance its auto-renewal disclosures so that customers would have a clear understanding of what they were agreeing to before any charges hit their account. Vague language about “trial periods” and buried terms were no longer going to cut it. The most significant operational change was twofold. First, customers must now take a separate affirmative action — such as checking a box or providing a digital signature — to consent to auto-renewal.
This is a meaningful departure from the old model, where consent was essentially assumed unless the user jumped through hoops to withdraw it. Second, Noom was required to provide a cancellation button directly on the account page, giving users a straightforward way to end their subscription without needing to contact a coach or navigate a maze of retention screens. The tradeoff for Noom is obvious: easier cancellation means higher churn. But the tradeoff for the broader subscription economy is instructive. Companies that rely on friction-based retention — making it hard to leave rather than making the product good enough to stay — are increasingly exposed to both regulatory action and class action liability. The Noom settlement effectively established a template: if your cancellation process is harder than your sign-up process, you are building a legal case against yourself.
Limitations of the Settlement and Common Pitfalls for Class Members
One persistent issue with consumer class actions of this scale is that many eligible class members never file a claim. With 2 million affected users, the settlement administrators faced the challenge of reaching people who may have deleted the app years ago, changed email addresses, or simply did not open the notice when it arrived. The claims deadline for the Noom settlement has passed, and users who did not file in time were left without a remedy despite being part of the affected class. Another limitation worth understanding: the settlement did not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Noom.
This is standard in class action settlements, but it means Noom could — and did — maintain that its practices were lawful even while agreeing to pay $62 million and change its business operations. For consumers, this legal nuance matters less than the practical outcome, but it does mean the settlement cannot be cited as a judicial finding that Noom violated the law. Finally, consumers should be aware that subscription fee credits — the $6 million portion of the settlement — only have value if you intend to continue using Noom. For users who were trying to leave the service in the first place, credits toward more Noom subscriptions are not particularly useful compensation. This is a recurring criticism of class action settlements that include service credits: they benefit the company almost as much as they benefit the consumer, since they drive continued engagement with the product.
How This Case Compares to Other Subscription Trap Lawsuits
The Noom settlement was not an isolated event. It arrived alongside a wave of similar cases targeting subscription-based services. Companies like ABCmouse faced a $10 million FTC settlement for similar auto-renewal practices. Beachbody, the fitness company behind P90X and Shakeology, faced its own class action over subscription cancellation difficulties.
Even major players like Amazon have faced scrutiny from the FTC over the complexity of canceling Prime memberships, with the agency alleging that Amazon used dark patterns in its sign-up and cancellation flows. What distinguished the Noom case was the insider testimony. Having a former senior engineer describe the cancellation difficulty as intentional — “difficult by design” — gave the lawsuit a level of specificity that many similar cases lack. Most subscription trap lawsuits rely on the consumer experience to infer intent; Noom’s case had someone from inside the company confirming the design philosophy behind the friction.
What the Noom Settlement Signals for the Future of Subscription Services
The Noom settlement, combined with the FTC’s increasingly aggressive posture toward dark patterns and subscription traps, signals a meaningful shift in what subscription companies can get away with. In March 2023, the FTC proposed a “click-to-cancel” rule that would require businesses to make cancellation as easy as sign-up — essentially codifying the kind of changes Noom was forced to adopt through litigation. The rule, if finalized, would apply across the subscription economy.
For consumers, the practical takeaway is both cautionary and encouraging. Cautionary, because subscription traps remain widespread and class action settlements rarely make individual consumers whole. Encouraging, because the legal and regulatory environment is moving in a direction that penalizes the worst offenders. If you are signing up for any subscription service, the Noom case is a reminder to screenshot the terms, set a calendar reminder before trial expiration, and verify that a simple cancellation option exists before you hand over your payment information.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who was eligible for the Noom class action settlement?
Users who purchased an autorenewing subscription through Noom’s website or mobile app in the United States between May 12, 2016 and October 6, 2020, and who did not receive a full refund, were eligible. The class included approximately 2 million users.
How much did Noom class action settlement members receive?
Payments varied by subclass. Subclass A members — those who were charged but never completed enrollment or did not use the app after the trial — received an average of approximately $167. Subclass B members, covering all other qualifying users, received an average of roughly $30.
Is it too late to file a claim in the Noom settlement?
Yes. The claims filing deadline has passed, and the settlement received final court approval in July 2022. Users who did not submit a claim by the deadline are no longer able to participate in the settlement.
What changes did Noom have to make as part of the settlement?
Noom was required to enhance its auto-renewal disclosures, implement a separate affirmative consent step (such as a checkbox or digital signature) before charging for auto-renewal, and add a cancellation button directly on the user’s account page.
What is a dark pattern in the context of subscription services?
A dark pattern is a deceptive user interface design that manipulates users into taking actions they did not intend, such as subscribing to a paid plan or making cancellation unnecessarily difficult. The Noom case was cited as a notable example of dark pattern practices in legal and academic commentary.