Noom Subscription Class Action Claims Users Were Enrolled in Auto-Renewals Improperly

Noom’s subscription service enrolled millions of users in automatic renewal without proper disclosure or explicit consent, leading to widespread complaints and multiple class action lawsuits. The Federal Trade Commission settled with Noom in 2023 for $59.8 million after finding that the company used deceptive practices to bill customers—charging them for continued subscriptions even when users thought they were on free trials or hadn’t authorized the charges. For example, customers reported being charged $60 or more monthly without clear notification that their trial period was ending, and when they tried to cancel, Noom required them to call customer service rather than offering a simple online cancellation option.

The core issue centers on Noom’s failure to clearly disclose auto-renewal terms before charging users. The FTC and multiple state attorneys general found that Noom advertised weight loss programs with prominent free trial offers, but buried the auto-renewal conditions in small print or failed to display them altogether before the initial charge. Users who believed they had a simple 14-day free trial were shocked to discover recurring charges on their credit cards weeks or months later.

What the Noom Auto-Renewal Deception Involved
The Evidence Noom’s Misleading Enrollment Practices Left Behind
Who Was Affected by Noom’s Auto-Renewal Charges
The FTC Settlement and What It Means for Claimants
Claim Filing Deadlines and Documentation Requirements
How Noom’s Deceptive Practices Compared to Other Digital Services
Red Flags in Noom’s Terms That Claimants Overlooked

What the Noom Auto-Renewal Deception Involved

Noom’s deceptive practices centered on three main tactics: hiding auto-renewal terms, making cancellation unnecessarily difficult, and charging without explicit consent. When users signed up for what appeared to be a free trial, they often did not see clear, prominent language explaining that they would be automatically charged at the end of the trial period. The company buried this information in dense legal text or presented it in ways that users could easily miss, especially on mobile devices where Noom conducted much of its marketing.

The difficult cancellation process compounded the problem. Instead of allowing users to cancel their subscriptions online through the same platform where they signed up, Noom required customers to call a phone number during business hours to stop the charges. This barrier meant many users gave up or simply didn’t realize cancellation was possible, continuing to pay for a service they no longer wanted. Some customers reported waiting on hold for 30 minutes or longer just to speak with someone about canceling their account.

The Evidence Noom’s Misleading Enrollment Practices Left Behind

Multiple government investigations and lawsuits documented clear patterns of misconduct. The FTC’s official complaint cited numerous examples of Noom’s advertising that prominently featured weight loss success stories without adequate evidence, while the auto-renewal terms were relegated to secondary importance. Courts and regulators found that Noom’s practices violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule, which requires companies to clearly disclose material terms before charging customers.

One significant limitation in pursuing damages is that some consumers’ claims expired before they could file. State statutes of limitations vary—some allow three years to file a breach of contract claim, while others limit it to two years or less. For users charged multiple times over years, only charges within the applicable timeframe can be included in their claim. Additionally, consumers who used credit cards rather than debit cards sometimes faced better protection through their card issuer’s dispute process, but those who used debit cards or bank transfers had fewer recourse options.

Who Was Affected by Noom’s Auto-Renewal Charges

The class action encompasses all consumers who enrolled in Noom’s subscription service during a specific period and were charged without proper disclosure or consent for auto-renewal. This includes people who signed up for the free trial, people who upgraded to paid plans, and people who were charged repeatedly over months or years without being able to easily cancel. The reach is substantial—Noom had millions of app downloads and active users during the period covered by the settlement.

Noom’s customer base skewed toward individuals interested in weight loss and fitness, with marketing heavily targeting women aged 25-55 on social media and through search advertising. This demographic overlap is important because it means many affected users encountered aggressive, targeted advertising that emphasized the “free” aspect while downplaying the auto-renewal commitment. Users who had never previously dealt with digital subscription billing were particularly vulnerable to not understanding what they were agreeing to.

The FTC Settlement and What It Means for Claimants

In 2023, the Federal Trade Commission reached a settlement with Noom requiring the company to pay up to $59.8 million in refunds to consumers who were improperly charged. This settlement represents one of the largest FTC enforcement actions against a weight loss company. However, not all consumers automatically receive refunds—claimants typically must file a claim form proving they were customers during the class period and were charged for auto-renewals.

The settlement includes not just refunds but also requirements that Noom change its business practices going forward. The company must now clearly display auto-renewal terms before customers are charged, obtain explicit consent to recurring charges, and provide an easy, simple online cancellation method. This is a meaningful practical change that protects future users, even though it doesn’t retroactively help past consumers who weren’t refunded. A significant tradeoff is that the settlement may not cover all users who were harmed—some may fall outside the class definition due to timing or other factors.

Claim Filing Deadlines and Documentation Requirements

Class members typically have 60 to 90 days from when they receive official settlement notice to file a claim for a refund. This deadline is strict, and late claims are generally not accepted, even by one day. The most important step is to watch for official settlement notices, which may arrive by email, postal mail, or through a claims administrator’s website. If you suspect you were a Noom customer during the class period, you should not wait passively—actively search for notices and set calendar reminders well before any deadline.

To file a claim, you will likely need to provide documentation proving you were a Noom customer and what you paid. This typically includes your credit card or bank statement showing the charges, your email confirmation from Noom, or any subscription receipts. Keep these documents organized in case you need to submit them as part of the claims process. A warning: the claims administrator may request additional proof if your documentation is unclear or incomplete, which can delay your refund, so be thorough when submitting your initial claim.

How Noom’s Deceptive Practices Compared to Other Digital Services

Noom’s auto-renewal deception wasn’t unique in the digital subscription space, but it was particularly aggressive. Other companies including Amazon Prime, Apple, and various streaming services have faced similar lawsuits and FTC action for unclear auto-renewal disclosures. However, Noom’s model specifically preyed on consumers seeking weight loss help—a population that may be less tech-savvy about digital subscription practices and more vulnerable to aggressive marketing claims.

The difference with Noom was the emphasis on health outcomes combined with billing deception. While a streaming service auto-renewal violation is frustrating, a weight loss subscription auto-renewal can represent a financial burden to people already struggling with their health journey and medical expenses. The psychological dimension—customers feeling betrayed by a company they thought was helping them—added another layer to the harm.

Red Flags in Noom’s Terms That Claimants Overlooked

Looking back, several red flags in Noom’s terms of service and enrollment process made the auto-renewal trap clear once you knew where to look. The phrase “free trial” was displayed prominently in marketing, but the actual trial period (often 7 to 14 days) was stated in much smaller text adjacent to information about “after your trial.” The spacing and font size created a visual hierarchy that emphasized “free” over the finite duration. Additionally, the enrollment button sometimes said “Start Free Trial” with auto-renewal disclosed separately in a checkbox or link that users could easily skip.

Payment method information was another tell—Noom requested credit card details before the trial began, not after. While this is common practice for online trials, it should have prompted users to ask themselves: “Why does a completely free service need my payment information?” The honest answer is that payment information is collected specifically to enable the automatic charge at trial’s end. Claimants who received refunds were often those who caught this inconsistency and kept records of their enrollment data, making it easier to document their claims years later.

Open Settlements You Can Claim Now

Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: