Yes, according to a class action lawsuit filed in December 2025, Oura Ring is accused of violating California’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL) through deceptive subscription practices. The case, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as Case No.
3:25-cv-10997, centers on allegations that Oura Health Oy and Ouraring Inc. failed to provide clear subscription terms at the point of purchase and made it difficult for users to cancel recurring charges. One plaintiff was charged $6.41 for a one-month membership in August 2023, then hit with monthly recurring charges without proper consent. This article covers the lawsuit’s details, the specific allegations, who may be affected by the class claims, and what the violations mean for consumers.
Table of Contents
- What Are the Core Violations Alleged in the Oura Ring Subscription Lawsuit?
- How Do the Plaintiffs’ Experiences Illustrate the Alleged Subscription Problems?
- What Makes Oura’s Subscription Practices Different from Other Tech Companies?
- Who Is Included in the Class and Why Should They Pay Attention?
- What Are the Broader Issues with Automatic Renewal Practices in the Wearable Tech Industry?
- What Happens to Customers During a Class Action Lawsuit Like This?
- What Could the Outcome of This Lawsuit Mean for Oura and the Wearable Tech Industry?
- Conclusion
What Are the Core Violations Alleged in the Oura Ring Subscription Lawsuit?
The lawsuit alleges three primary violations of California consumer protection statutes. The Automatic Renewal Law requires companies to obtain affirmative, express consent before enrolling customers in continuous service programs, and to provide clear, conspicuous terms about the subscription cost, cancellation policy, and renewal terms before charging. The complaint states that oura failed to display this information in visual proximity to the checkout button, making it easy for customers to purchase without understanding what they were signing up for. The Consumers Legal Remedies Act prohibits unfair and deceptive practices in consumer transactions, and the Unfair Competition Law provides a broader catch-all for practices that violate public policy or consumer protection laws.
Together, these statutes carry significant penalties for violations—both statutory damages for each violation and actual damages if customers can prove they were harmed financially. The specific failures alleged include inadequate disclosures about subscription costs before purchase and the absence of a cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use cancellation mechanism. For subscription-based products, California law requires that cancellation be as easy to perform as signup itself. If Oura made it simple to buy a membership but difficult to cancel one—for example, by requiring users to contact customer service instead of providing a simple online cancellation option—this would violate the ARL. This is a common complaint across the tech industry, where companies have faced similar lawsuits for burying cancellation options deep in account settings or requiring phone calls to cancel.
How Do the Plaintiffs’ Experiences Illustrate the Alleged Subscription Problems?
Three named plaintiffs are leading this lawsuit, each experiencing different flavors of the same problem: automatic charges they didn’t clearly consent to. Plaintiff Kunal Lekhadia purchased a one-month prepaid membership in August 2023 for $6.41, then was automatically charged monthly without his knowledge or explicit consent to the renewal terms. This happened despite completing what he believed was a one-time purchase. Plaintiff Neel Patel faced a similar situation in December when he paid $5.99 for a one-month membership only to see automatic monthly charges continue without him requesting a subscription.
The pattern suggests that Oura’s checkout flow either failed to clearly disclose that the membership would renew automatically, or the disclosure was buried in fine print rather than presented prominently at the point of purchase. The third plaintiff, Gaurav Agrawal, purchased an annual membership for $69.99 in August 2024 and was then automatically renewed for the same $69.99 charge a year later without his knowledge. This is particularly concerning because a $69.99 annual charge represents a significant commitment that most consumers would remember authorizing only if the terms were crystal clear at purchase. However, if the renewal happened without conspicuous notice or a simple way to opt out beforehand, Oura may have violated California’s requirement to obtain express consent before each renewal. Agrawal’s experience is especially relevant because annual memberships often involve the largest single charges, making the impact on class members potentially substantial when multiplied across thousands of users.
What Makes Oura’s Subscription Practices Different from Other Tech Companies?
While many tech companies have faced automatic renewal lawsuits, Oura’s specific model presents a particular enforcement opportunity. Oura’s product is a wearable ring that requires a subscription for core features—heart rate variability tracking, sleep analysis, stress monitoring, and personalized guidance. Unlike free apps that offer optional premium tiers, Oura’s subscription is the primary way the company monetizes its user base, making each new customer theoretically aware they’re entering a paid relationship. Yet the lawsuit’s allegations suggest that awareness and agreement to recurring charges are two different things.
A customer might willingly pay $5.99 for a month of features but not understand that they’ve automatically agreed to be charged again the following month until their credit card shows an unexpected transaction. This business model creates higher stakes than, say, Netflix’s subscription model, because Oura also sells the physical ring hardware upfront (typically $300+), so customers have already made a significant investment before deciding whether the subscription is worth the ongoing cost. If Oura’s checkout process failed to clearly explain that the monthly membership would renew automatically, it effectively locked customers into recurring payments after they’d already committed to purchasing the hardware itself. This is a known leverage point for regulators and plaintiff attorneys—when companies combine hardware sales with mandatory subscriptions, the disclosure requirements become even stricter because the total cost of ownership is higher and more likely to affect consumer behavior.
Who Is Included in the Class and Why Should They Pay Attention?
The class definition in the lawsuit is broad: it includes anyone in the United States who purchased a product or service from Oura Ring through an automatic renewal plan or continuous service offer within the last four years (dating back to approximately December 2021). This encompasses millions of potential class members, not just the three named plaintiffs. If you bought an Oura Ring membership at any point between late 2021 and now, whether you were charged monthly, annually, or in any other recurring interval, you may be part of the class. The four-year lookback period is significant because it means even customers who bought Oura rings years ago and have since canceled are still eligible for potential recovery. However, there is a critical limitation: you must have been charged through an automatic renewal arrangement to qualify.
If you paid for a one-time subscription or if you manually renewed your subscription each period without any automatic charges, the lawsuit may not apply to you. Additionally, the class is limited to customers who made purchases while residing in the United States. International customers or those outside the U.S. at the time of purchase would fall outside the scope of California’s consumer protection laws. If you fit the definition, it’s important to keep any records related to your Oura Ring purchase, including account confirmation emails, credit card statements showing the charges, and any communications with Oura about cancellation or billing issues.
What Are the Broader Issues with Automatic Renewal Practices in the Wearable Tech Industry?
Automatic renewal violations have become a hallmark of federal and state enforcement actions over the past decade. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general have cracked down on companies ranging from Amazon Prime to Adobe Creative Cloud for failing to make cancellation easy or for burying renewal disclosures. The challenge with wearable technology is particularly acute because these devices collect intimate health data—heart rate, sleep patterns, stress levels—and the companies that make them have strong incentives to lock customers into recurring payments to ensure steady revenue. Customers who feel trapped by difficult cancellation processes or unexpected charges may abandon the product entirely, leaving negative reviews that damage the brand reputation far beyond the immediate financial loss from a single charge.
However, not all automatic renewal disputes lead to class action settlements. Companies that provide genuinely easy cancellation (clickable “unsubscribe” buttons in account settings, no phone calls required) and clearly state renewal terms at purchase often survive legal challenges. The lawsuits tend to target companies where there’s a meaningful gap between what the terms should have been and what was actually disclosed. In Oura’s case, if the investigation and litigation prove that the checkout flow lacked a prominent, easy-to-understand statement about automatic renewal, that would be a classic violation that regulators prioritize. Wearable companies entering this space in the future would be wise to learn from these cases and invest in transparent, user-friendly subscription management.
What Happens to Customers During a Class Action Lawsuit Like This?
Once a class action lawsuit is certified by a court (which hasn’t happened yet in the Oura case—that’s a future step), the class members don’t typically have to do anything immediately, though they will usually receive a settlement notice if a settlement is reached. The notice will explain the terms of the settlement, the amount available for class recovery, and how to submit a claim if you were affected. Some settlements are “claim-based,” meaning you must submit proof of your Oura Ring purchases and charges to receive compensation. Others are “claims-made” settlements where Oura provides data to the settlement administrator about who was charged and what they paid, making the process easier for class members.
In either case, compensation typically comes from a settlement fund that Oura and its insurers agree to pay, which is then divided among approved claimants. For now, customers should simply be aware that the lawsuit exists and monitor the case for updates. You can track the litigation through the federal court’s PACER system (the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system) using the case number 3:25-cv-10997, or you may receive a notice directly from the settlement administrator if and when a settlement is approved. There is no requirement to hire an attorney as a class member—the lawsuit is being pursued by the class representatives and their counsel, and attorney fees are typically paid from the settlement fund, not from individual class members’ recoveries.
What Could the Outcome of This Lawsuit Mean for Oura and the Wearable Tech Industry?
The trajectory of similar lawsuits suggests that Oura will likely either negotiate a settlement or face discovery and trial. Settlements in automatic renewal cases typically result in payments ranging from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the size of the class and the strength of the evidence. For example, the FTC’s settlement with Amazon over Prime auto-enrollment reached $25 million, and various state-level ARL cases have exceeded $100 million when the class sizes and damages are large. Given that Oura has sold hundreds of thousands of rings and charged millions of customers through automatic renewal, a meaningful settlement would not be trivial.
Beyond the financial outcome, a settlement would likely require Oura to implement improved disclosure practices, make subscription cancellation more straightforward, and possibly submit to third-party audits to ensure compliance going forward. For the broader wearable tech industry, this litigation serves as a reminder that the convenience of automatic renewal comes with significant legal risk if not implemented correctly. Companies that have not recently audited their subscription checkout flows, cancellation processes, and renewal disclosures should do so immediately. Regulators and plaintiffs’ attorneys are actively targeting industries where automatic renewal is standard practice, and wearables—given their reliance on recurring subscriptions to monetize hardware sales—are squarely in the crosshairs. The Oura case may also prompt competitors to invest more aggressively in transparent, friction-free subscription management as a competitive advantage, knowing that customers are now more aware of automatic renewal risks and may prefer companies with clearer policies.
Conclusion
The class action lawsuit against Oura Ring alleges clear violations of California’s consumer protection statutes through opaque subscription practices and inadequate cancellation mechanisms. The three named plaintiffs represent a broader group of potentially millions of U.S. customers who were enrolled in automatic renewal plans over the past four years without explicit, well-disclosed consent.
The legal claims—violations of the Automatic Renewal Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law—address core fairness issues that regulators and consumer advocates have prioritized across many industries. If you purchased an Oura Ring subscription during the relevant time period and were automatically charged, you should retain any documentation of your purchases and charges, as you may be part of the eventual class settlement. The litigation is still in its early phases, but past experience with similar automatic renewal cases suggests a settlement is likely. Keeping informed through federal court records or by signing up for settlement notifications is the best way to protect your rights and ensure you receive any compensation if a settlement is reached.