33 States Investigated Why Canceling a $49.95 Membership Was So Hard

TFG Holding, Inc., the parent company behind the online fashion brands JustFab, ShoeDazzle, and FabKids, automatically enrolled customers in a VIP Membership Program carrying a recurring $49.95 monthly charge, according to a coalition of state attorneys general — often without customers' clear knowledge or consent, and with a cancellation process the states say was deliberately made difficult to navigate.DOCUMENTED

Attorneys general from 33 states announced a $4.8 million multistate settlement with TFG Holding in October 2025, resolving allegations that the company's membership enrollment and billing practices violated state consumer protection laws.DOCUMENTED

What the states alleged

According to the multistate settlement, TFG Holding violated state consumer protection laws by misrepresenting the prices consumers could expect to pay for products advertised on its websites, automatically enrolling consumers into the VIP Membership Program without their express knowledge or consent, implementing cancellation policies and practices that complicated a consumer's ability to actually cancel the membership, and failing to adequately disclose that purchasing a product would trigger automatic enrollment in the recurring program.DOCUMENTED Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday said the settlement would “enable hundreds of Pennsylvanians who were misled into these seemingly never-ending subscription charges to be free of those financial obligations and recover their payments.”DOCUMENTED

How the membership's mechanics worked against consumers

The program's specific structure — charging the $49.95 fee automatically unless a customer made a purchase, canceled before the sixth of the month, or actively logged in to skip that particular month's payment — placed the burden of avoiding a charge squarely on the consumer, requiring an affirmative action within a specific window rather than requiring the company to obtain a fresh opt-in before each charge.REVIEWED That structure, common across negative-option subscription models, means a customer who simply forgets to log in during any given month's window is charged by default, a design states have increasingly scrutinized as shifting the effort of cancellation onto consumers rather than requiring companies to make continued billing an active choice.

Why a 33-state coalition pursued the case together

Coordinating a single multistate investigation and settlement, rather than each state pursuing separate litigation independently, allowed the participating attorneys general to combine investigative resources and present a unified set of remedial terms to TFG Holding, while still allowing individual states to publicize the settlement and distribute their own state-specific refund amounts directly to affected residents.REVIEWED Wisconsin's settlement announcement, for example, specified more than $117,000 in refunds to state consumers, while Pennsylvania's specified more than $300,000 — state-specific figures within the same overall $4.8 million agreement, reflecting how a coordinated multistate settlement can still be broken down and communicated locally.

Terms of the settlement

Under the settlement, TFG Holding agreed to provide approximately $3.8 million in automatic refunds to eligible consumers nationwide and to pay $1 million in investigative costs to the participating states.DOCUMENTED Going forward, the company must clearly disclose all terms of the VIP Membership Program, provide a simple cancellation process, and obtain express consent before enrolling any customer in the recurring program; it is also barred from using misleading countdown timers or falsely advertising limited-time offers, marketing tactics the states identified as compounding the underlying billing deception.DOCUMENTED Consumers who believed they were affected but did not receive an automatic refund had a limited window, running 90 days from the settlement's October 2025 announcement, to file a complaint with their state's consumer protection office to be considered for additional restitution.DOCUMENTED

Customers were charged $49.95 a month by default unless they took a specific action — a purchase, an early cancellation, or logging in to skip that month — shifting the burden of avoiding the charge onto them rather than the company.

Why the case matters

For shoppers on any retail website offering a discount or rewards program tied to a recurring membership, the TFG Holding settlement is a reminder that a program's enrollment terms and cancellation mechanics deserve the same scrutiny as its advertised discount, and that a coordinated, 33-state investigation was ultimately what it took to change a billing structure that had reportedly generated recurring, hard-to-cancel charges across multiple popular fashion brands simultaneously.

Why state attorneys general pursue cases the FTC does not always bring

State consumer protection statutes often provide attorneys general with legal tools and remedies that can differ from, and in some respects exceed, what the FTC Act provides at the federal level, giving states an independent basis to pursue cases like this one even without parallel federal action. A 33-state coalition working together on a single company's practices reflects how state attorneys general increasingly coordinate investigations across jurisdictions to address a single company's nationwide conduct through one settlement, rather than each state litigating separately.

What consumers can check on any membership program going forward

Before enrolling in any retailer's membership or rewards program, consumers can reasonably ask, and confirm in writing, exactly what recurring charge applies, on what schedule, and precisely what action is required to avoid or cancel it — rather than assuming a discount program is free simply because no immediate charge appears at checkout. That specific combination of questions would have surfaced exactly the billing structure this multistate settlement ultimately required TFG Holding to disclose clearly. That combination of specific, written answers costs nothing to request and can prevent months of unwanted charges before they ever begin. Multistate settlements like this one exist precisely because that kind of individual due diligence, while useful, is not a substitute for regulators actually changing the underlying billing structure for everyone.

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.