Stanfield v. Tawkify, Inc.

Background

Jeremy Stanfield purchased Tawkify’s “6 Match Standard Client Package” for $3,700. After going on two dates, he canceled and demanded a full refund. Tawkify initially refunded $1,850, then refunded the remaining $1,850 before Stanfield served the complaint. The full refund was completed within 40 days of his initial cancellation request.

Stanfield’s amended complaint asserted three claims: that Tawkify violated California’s Dating Services Contracts Act (DSCA); that it violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL); and that it violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). An earlier order had converted Tawkify’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and held it while the parties conducted discovery. Tawkify then renewed its motion for summary judgment on all claims.

Dating Services Contracts Act

The court held that Tawkify’s contract did not contain several provisions required by the DSCA, including required cancellation and disclosure language. Because of those omissions, the contract was void and unenforceable under the statute, and Stanfield could cancel it after the statutory three-day cooling-off period.

The court rejected Stanfield’s argument that cancellation based on an incomplete contract automatically entitled him to the full refund available for cancellation during the three-day cooling-off period. It interpreted the statute as providing a full refund for cancellations during that three-day period, while generally providing a prorated refund for services not received when a buyer cancels later because the contract is noncompliant.

The court concluded that Stanfield was entitled to the value of four dates he had not received, which it calculated as $2,467. Tawkify had initially retained $1,850 for three dates, but Stanfield never received a third date. Tawkify’s refund policy therefore did not allow it to retain the value of that third date. Because Tawkify ultimately refunded the entire $3,700, the court found that Stanfield received $1,233 more than the DSCA required.

The court also rejected Stanfield’s argument that the DSCA required payment within ten days. It held that the ten-day rule applied to cancellations during the three-day cooling-off period, not to this type of cancellation. For cancellations under the contract-compliance provision, the refund had to be made promptly within a reasonable period. The court found that Tawkify’s full refund, received 36 days after Stanfield’s effective email cancellation, was prompt and reasonable under the circumstances. The court stated that even if a ten-day deadline applied, the over-refund compensated Stanfield for the lost time value of the money.

UCL and CLRA Claims

Stanfield’s UCL and CLRA claims were based on the alleged DSCA violations. The court said it did not need to decide statutory standing under those laws because the claims failed on the merits. It dismissed both claims.

Jurisdiction and Disposition

The court did not address whether Stanfield had Article III standing because it dismissed the entire case on the merits. It also declined to remand his request for injunctive relief to state court, stating that diversity jurisdiction remained and that remand would waste judicial resources.

The court granted summary judgment for Tawkify and against Stanfield. It dismissed the DSCA claim and dismissed the UCL and CLRA claims. The order stated that judgment would be entered separately; it did not specify that the dismissals were with or without prejudice.