WHOOP Agrees to $11M Settlement Over Subscription Renewals

The California class action challenged how WHOOP disclosed automatic-renewal terms before and after customers purchased memberships. The settlement still requires court approval.

WHOOP, the fitness technology company that pairs wearable trackers with paid memberships, has agreed to an $11 million settlement in a California class action challenging how it disclosed automatic-renewal terms to customers purchasing memberships through its website.

The agreement, signed October 23, follows nearly three years of litigation over the company's enrollment process and customer communications. It still requires court approval.

The California Law Behind the Lawsuit

The lawsuit was brought by Donrick Sanderson on behalf of California customers who purchased WHOOP memberships through its website and were charged for automatic renewals after their initial membership or commitment period ended.

Sanderson alleged that WHOOP failed to comply with California's Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), which governs how businesses disclose recurring charges and obtain customer consent. Under the law applicable to the disputed transactions, businesses were required to clearly display renewal terms near the request for consent, obtain affirmative consent before charging customers and provide a confirmation customers could keep, including renewal terms and cancellation information.

Because California's ARL does not give consumers a direct right to sue under that law, Sanderson brought claims under the state's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Although the case was heard in federal court, the underlying claims concerned California consumer-protection laws.

What Customers Saw at Checkout

According to a July federal court ruling, WHOOP displayed its automatic-renewal disclosure below the "Place Order" button in a small block of gray text against a white background. The text said customers authorized WHOOP to charge their cards annually when memberships renewed and that they could cancel at any time.

Sanderson argued that the language was difficult to notice and failed to adequately explain important terms, including how long renewals would continue, the recurring charge amount and what customers needed to do to avoid another charge.

The cancellation language was also disputed. Customers could cancel during a membership term but generally would not receive a prorated refund. They also needed to cancel before the renewal date to avoid another charge, according to the court's discussion of WHOOP's policies.

WHOOP maintained that its disclosures and customer communications adequately explained automatic renewal and argued that it had acted in good faith.

Order Confirmations and Renewal Emails

The plaintiff also challenged WHOOP's order confirmation emails and annual renewal reminders, arguing that they did not adequately explain renewal terms and cancellation procedures. One reminder examined by the court featured promotional language and a prominent "Renew My Membership" button, even though the customer's subscription was already scheduled to renew automatically.

The email also included information about the upcoming renewal and its price. WHOOP argued that its checkout disclosures, confirmation messages and renewal reminders, considered together, satisfied the law's requirements.

In July, the federal judge declined to resolve the remaining consumer-protection damages claim in either side's favor. Questions remained about the adequacy of the disclosures, whether customers were misled and how damages should be measured.

The judge also addressed whether information supplied after a purchase could overcome an alleged omission that influenced the customer's original decision to subscribe. The ruling did not establish that WHOOP violated California law.

The $11 Million Settlement

Following mediation, the parties reached an agreement covering the remaining federal claim and related claims brought in California state court.

Under the October 23 agreement, WHOOP would establish an $11 million cash settlement fund. A federal court filing says the amount represents approximately 39% of the $28.2 million in full-refund damages the plaintiff had sought for the claims being settled.

On October 29, the federal judge dismissed the case without prejudice, allowing the parties to seek settlement approval in California state court. The federal case may be reopened if the settlement is not approved or otherwise fails to take effect.

If approved, the settlement would resolve the disputed claims without a finding that WHOOP violated the law.

Insider Take

WHOOP's proposed $11 million settlement is another reminder of how costly disputes over state automatic-renewal requirements can become, even years after the original transactions. This was a private class action, not a state enforcement proceeding.

With states continuing to strengthen subscription rules, operators need to look beyond whether today's checkout meets current requirements. Earlier enrollment practices, renewal communications and records of consent can remain relevant for years, especially when recurring charges have accumulated.

Sources

• U.S. District Court: July 2026 Summary Judgment Ruling, Sanderson v. Whoop
• U.S. District Court: October 29, 2026 Settlement-Related Dismissal Order