Law in the Brief: Automatic Renewal Clauses Not So Automatic, Act 139

The lawmakers hope is that with the use of “clear and conspicuous” language (as defined by the Federal Trade Commission’s standard) that this gives consumers a change to be fully apprised of the situation.  Namely, that there is an automatic renewal clause and what steps they have to take in order to stop the contract from renewal.

Basically, this is an attempt to shift the burden back to the entity issuing the contract so that consumers may not be bound to a contract for a period longer than they anticipated or finding themselves stuck with something they do not want.

Act 139 applies to almost everyone selling things to people under a consumer contract that is for a specific term of more than one month and contains n automatic renewal clause for a term of more than one month.  However, there are some exemptions made to certain entities:

1. Financial Institutions, for the activities regulated under under Chapter 412);
2. Insurers, for the activities regulated under their respective chapters, as follows:
3. Insurance companies(Chapters 431);
4. Mutual benefit societies (Chapter 432);
5. HMOs (Chapter 432).

If you are an organization that does not fall under the exemption you will need to take a look at your agreements and your processes of notification. While, the law is in effect, the substantive portion does not go into effect until next year, July 1, 2012.  Therefore, it gives you some time to review.  So consider the following questions

1. Do you let the consumer know what the terms of automatic renewal are?
2. Is it clear and conspicuous in the agreement?
3. Do you have a system that monitors contracts and sends out notices when their term is almost up?

These are some of the things to think about and have an attorney conduct a legal audit and review of all your contracts so you can update them.  By the way, if you don’t know what “clear and conspicious” means in terms of written agreements this is the definition:

1. means in larger type than the surrounding text;
2. in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size; or
3. set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks in a manner that clearly calls attention to the language.

If you liked this post or any of my other series please “Subscribe” to this blawg to receive e-mail updates.  I would recommend subscribing, as I will be doing the Boilerplate Blurbs (explaining regularly used clauses) sporadically.  In addition, follow me on Twitter and “Like” me on Facebook.

If you need to contact me directly, please e-mail me at Ryankhew@hawaiiesquire.com.

—

*Disclaimer:  This post discusses general legal issues, but does not constitute legal advice in any respect.  No reader should act or refrain from acting based on information contained herein without seeking the advice of counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.  Ryan K. Hew, Attorney At Law, LLLC expressly disclaims all liability in respect to any actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this post.