N.J. Class Action Is Second to Accuse SiriusXM of ‘Deceptive Pricing Scheme’
The second fraud class action against SiriusXM to enter the federal court system in three days was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark by plaintiffs Robyn Posternock, Muriel Salters and Philip Munning. Their complaint (docket 2:23-cv-02680), brought under New Jersey law on behalf of a class comprised solely of New Jersey citizens, challenges “a deceptive pricing scheme whereby SiriusXM falsely advertises its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
DeNittis Osefchen of Marlton, New Jersey, and Hattis & Lukacs of Bellevue, Washington, are representing the plaintiffs in the New Jersey action. DeNittis Osefchen’s website says the firm specializes in class actions and personal injury cases. Hattis & Lukacs specializes false-advertising lawsuits, says its website.
Hattis & Lukacs brought the nearly identical complaint against SiriusXM April 14 on behalf of plaintiffs Ayana Stevenson and David Ambrose in California Superior Court for Contra Costa County before SiriusXM removed it Monday to U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco (see 2305160038). The docket report originally listed Stevenson and Ambrose as pro se plaintiffs before it was changed a day or two later.
Both complaints allege SiriusXM’s imposition of an "invented" music royalty fee raises consumers’ monthly bills 21.4% above their advertised monthly rates. Both further allege SiriusXM deceptively named the extraneous fee to make it look as if it’s the result of a U.S. government mandate.
SiriusXM’s notice of removal in the California lawsuit said the company concedes “neither liability” on the plaintiffs’ claims “nor the propriety of the relief sought.” The notice also said SiriusXM doesn’t “concede in any way” that the allegations in the complaint are accurate, that SiriusXM committed any of the violations of law alleged in the complaint, or that the plaintiffs have asserted claims upon which relief can be granted. The company didn’t respond to emailed requests for comment about the New Jersey class action.
Both complaints allege SiriusXM goes to great lengths to conceal the royalty fee from consumers. They allege, for example, SiriusXM’s automatic renewal and billing processes are designed to prevent its subscribers from learning of the “scheme.” SiriusXM signs up customers for automatic renewal by default, they say. After the initial signup email, they say, SiriusXM “never thereafter emails the customer any bills -- or even receipts -- of the ongoing charges.”