Coastal Home Warranty LLC agreed to a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission over allegations that it enrolled homeowners in recurring service contracts through misleading promotional offers and maintained a cancellation process so deliberately burdensome that it effectively prevented many subscribers from ending their contracts when they chose to do so — a practice that generated substantial unauthorized charges on consumers who believed they had cancelled or were never aware they had enrolled in an ongoing subscription.DOCUMENTED
The settlement requires Coastal to pay consumer redress, prohibits the company from misrepresenting the terms of any service contract or negative option offer, and requires it to provide consumers with a simple mechanism for cancelling that is at least as easy to use as the method through which they enrolled. The case is part of a broader pattern of enforcement targeting companies that design cancellation barriers to extend subscription revenue from consumers who have decided to stop.DOCUMENTED
- Coastal enrolled homeowners through mailers and digital ads representing a free trial period with no obligation
- The cancellation process required a telephone call to a retention department with limited operating hours, resulting in hold times averaging over thirty minutes in documented calls
- Representatives were trained to offer discounts and service credits before processing a cancellation, extending multiple additional contacts before accepting a cancel request
- Consumers who mailed written cancellation requests were told only phone cancellation was accepted
- Charges continued for one to three billing cycles after consumers believed they had cancelled in some documented cases
The Enrollment Process
Coastal Home Warranty marketed its service contracts through a combination of direct mail pieces that resembled official property records or government correspondence, digital advertising that emphasized a free trial or low introductory monthly cost, and telemarketing calls to homeowners in specific zip codes. The enrollment offer prominently featured a trial period — typically described as thirty or sixty days — and characterized the plan as carrying no long-term obligation if the consumer chose to cancel after experiencing the service.DOCUMENTED
The enrollment flow collected payment information at the time of enrollment, with authorization language buried in lengthy terms and conditions not displayed prominently in the enrollment interface or described in detail during the enrollment call. Consumers who enrolled through the direct mail channel completed a reply card that had no plain-language description of the automatic recurring charge that would begin after the trial period, or of the timeline by which they would need to cancel to avoid the first ongoing charge.DOCUMENTED
The Cancellation Barrier Design
The FTC's complaint analyzes the specific elements of Coastal's cancellation process as evidence that it was designed to reduce cancellation rates rather than to comply with consumers' stated intent to end the service. The cancellation mechanism required a telephone call to a dedicated cancellation line that operated within a narrow window of hours that Coastal's consumer communications did not disclose prominently. Call volume data obtained from Coastal during the investigation showed average hold times exceeding thirty minutes during peak periods.DOCUMENTED
Representatives handling cancellation calls were trained through a script that required them to first offer a discounted renewal price, then a service credit for a future claim, then a reduced-coverage plan before they were permitted to process a cancellation. The script directed representatives to complete each stage of the retention offer flow before accepting a cancellation request, even when the consumer stated clearly at the outset of the call that they did not want any of those offers and simply wanted to cancel. Consumers who attempted to cancel in writing — through a letter or email to the company — received a response stating that cancellation could only be processed by telephone.DOCUMENTED
Company training materials reviewed during the investigation described the cancellation queue as a "save funnel" — the goal was to retain the subscriber at some price point, not to honor the cancellation the consumer had called to request.
Continuing Charges After Cancellation
Consumer complaints compiled by the FTC and state attorneys general who participated in the investigation included a significant number of accounts from homeowners who believed they had completed a cancellation but continued to see charges from Coastal on subsequent billing cycles. In several documented instances, consumers were charged for one to three months after they had spoken with a Coastal representative who verbally confirmed the cancellation. Coastal's internal records in these cases indicated that the cancellation had been entered but with a delay that resulted in additional billing cycles being processed before the account was flagged as closed.DOCUMENTED
This post-cancellation charge pattern is a separate violation from the initial enrollment and cancellation-barrier issues, because it constitutes unauthorized use of payment credentials after consent has been withdrawn. Regulators documented it as part of the overall unfair and deceptive pattern of conduct rather than as isolated processing errors.REVIEWED
Settlement Terms
The settlement requires Coastal to provide a cancellation mechanism that matches in simplicity the method the consumer used to enroll — meaning that consumers who enrolled online must be able to cancel online, without a telephone call being required. Coastal must also provide clear disclosure of automatic renewal terms in its enrollment materials, stop charging consumers after a valid cancellation has been communicated by any channel, and provide refunds to consumers for charges made after a cancellation request was received. The FTC is accepting consumer claims for the redress fund through a process described on the agency's website.DOCUMENTED
Consumer Rights in Service Contract Cancellations
Federal law gives consumers specific rights in connection with negative option products — subscription services that automatically renew unless the consumer affirmatively cancels. Under the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act and the updated Negative Option Rule, sellers must clearly disclose all material terms before collecting billing information, must provide a cancellation mechanism that is no more difficult than enrollment, and must process cancellations in a timely manner without imposing additional obligations on the consumer. State consumer protection laws in many jurisdictions provide additional protections, including required waiting periods after enrollment during which cancellation must be permitted without penalty. Consumers who believe they have been charged for a service contract they attempted to cancel, or who were enrolled without clear consent, should file complaints with their state attorney general as well as with federal regulators. Preserving payment records, screenshots of enrollment pages, and written communications about cancellation attempts will support any complaint or claim for refund.
Sources behind this report
Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.