Debono

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHERIE DEBONO, et al., Case No. 22-cv-03378-AGT

Plaintiffs,

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

v. Re: Dkt. No.

CEREBRAL INC.,

Defendant.

For the following reasons, Cerebral’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended1 class action complaint is granted with leave to amend. 1. Plaintiffs allege that Cerebral violated multiple provisions of California’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) by not adequately disclosing the company’s subscription and cancellation terms. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17600–17606; FAC ¶¶ 153, 163. The ARL doesn’t include a private right of action. See Johnson v. Pluralsight, LLC, 728 F. App’x 674, 676–77 (9th Cir. 2018). But consumers may bring claims to enforce the ARL under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). See Ar- nold v. Hearst Mag. Media, Inc., No. 19-CV-1969-WQH-MDD, 2021 WL 488343, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021). To do so, however, consumers cannot simply allege an ARL violation; they must also allege that the violation injured them. See Mayron v. Google LLC, 54 Cal. App. 5th 566, 574–77 (2020); Rutter…