Weizman v. Talkspace, Inc.

Background

Talkspace operates an online mental-health-services platform. Weizman alleged that she bought therapy sessions from Talkspace in October 2022 but was not matched with a suitable therapist. She further alleged that Talkspace placed her in an automatically renewing subscription plan without her affirmative consent. After she canceled the subscription on October 13, 2022, Talkspace allegedly charged her $396 on November 10, 2022.

Weizman brought a proposed class action under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), alleging that Talkspace’s practices violated California’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL). The ARL requires automatic-renewal terms to be presented clearly and conspicuously before a purchase is completed and requires the consumer’s affirmative consent before charging for an automatic renewal. Weizman sought class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary relief including restitution and disgorgement, and attorney’s fees.

Talkspace moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Weizman lacked standing because she allegedly reactivated her account before the November charge. Talkspace also moved under Rule 12(f) to strike the class claims and other allegations, relying on a purported class waiver in its Terms of Use.

UCL Standing and Causation

The court rejected Talkspace’s argument that Weizman failed to allege economic harm caused by the alleged automatic-renewal violation. Weizman alleged that she paid for the initial therapy sessions and would not have made that purchase had Talkspace disclosed that it would place her in an automatically renewing plan without permission. The court held that this alleged initial economic injury was sufficient to establish UCL standing, regardless of what happened later.

The court also declined to consider Talkspace’s evidence supporting its claim that Weizman voluntarily reactivated her subscription. That theory was not extensively referenced in the complaint and was not a generally known fact suitable for judicial notice. At the pleading stage, the court therefore accepted Weizman’s allegation that the November $396 charge was caused by Talkspace’s alleged ARL violation.

Adequate Legal Remedy

The court granted Talkspace’s motion to dismiss Weizman’s UCL claim because the complaint did not allege that she lacked an adequate remedy at law. UCL remedies are equitable, meaning they generally involve restitution or prospective declaratory or injunctive relief rather than damages. The court followed decisions requiring a plaintiff seeking equitable UCL relief to allege, at a minimum, that legal remedies are inadequate.

The court granted Weizman leave to amend so she could include that allegation if she could do so.

Injunctive Relief

The court also granted Talkspace’s motion to dismiss Weizman’s request for injunctive relief, with leave to amend. To seek an injunction, a plaintiff must show a real or immediate threat of being harmed again in a similar way. Weizman’s complaint did not allege facts showing a sufficient likelihood that she would use Talkspace’s services in the future.

The court stated that knowledge of the alleged unlawful subscription plan does not automatically defeat a request for an injunction, but Weizman’s existing complaint did not plead circumstances that could support such relief despite her knowledge of the plan and the absence of alleged future injury.

Class Claims and Other Allegations

The court denied Talkspace’s motion to strike the class claims. Talkspace did not establish that the screenshot showing the Terms of Use was the webpage Weizman saw when she signed up, or that the Terms of Use were presented before she was charged. Those factual issues could affect whether Weizman agreed to the Terms of Use and whether the purported class waiver was enforceable. The court held that those issues required factual development and could not be resolved on the motion to dismiss.

The court also denied Talkspace’s motion to strike allegations concerning the availability and adequacy of therapists. Although Talkspace characterized those allegations as inflammatory and irrelevant, the court found that they provided relevant background and that Talkspace had not shown specific undue prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted, with leave to amend, Talkspace’s motion to dismiss Weizman’s UCL claim and request for injunctive relief. The court otherwise denied Talkspace’s motion to dismiss and motion to strike. Weizman was required to file any amended complaint within 21 days after the order was filed.