Consumer Protection - Automatic Renewals
HB107, titled the Consumer Protection – Automatic Renewals Act, regulates subscription and other purchasing agreements that renew automatically after an initial term of more than one month. The bill requires sellers to present automatic-renewal terms clearly and conspicuously before the consumer agrees, including the post-trial or post-initial-term price or other changes, and to disclose easy-to-find cancellation methods. It also requires sellers to provide advance notice before renewal takes effect, with timing rules that vary depending on whether the offer includes a free gift or trial or whether the initial term is at least one year.
The bill further requires that consumers be able to cancel in a manner that is simple, timely, and not unreasonably difficult, including online, by telephone, or in person, depending on how the consumer originally enrolled. It restricts automatic charging of a consumer’s credit card unless clear notice is given and the consumer consents, and it treats violations as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices under Maryland’s consumer protection law. The bill also exempts certain regulated industries and entities, including those overseen by the Maryland Insurance Administration, the Maryland Service Contracts and Consumer Products Guaranty Act, the Public Service Commission, the FCC, and FERC, and it states that compliance with certain state or federal renewal rules or licensing requirements counts as compliance with the new section.
HB107 amends Maryland’s Commercial Law Article by adding a new automatic-renewal section and by expanding the list of practices deemed unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices under § 13-301. It creates new disclosure, notice, cancellation, and billing requirements for businesses that use subscription renewals or similar recurring-charge arrangements, while carving out several regulated sectors and entities. The law also specifies that no private right of action is created under the section, leaving enforcement to the state’s consumer-protection framework and applicable penalties under Title 13.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable legislative support, passing the House and Senate with substantial majorities in multiple third-reading votes. The vote totals suggest broad bipartisan acceptance of stronger consumer protections for recurring subscriptions and automatic renewals. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the recorded votes indicate the measure was not highly divisive overall.
The main policy tension in HB107 is between consumer protection and administrative burden on businesses that rely on subscription or renewal models. Supporters likely favored clearer disclosures, easier cancellation, and advance notice to prevent consumers from being surprised by recurring charges, while opponents or skeptics may have been concerned about compliance costs, operational complexity, and the bill’s detailed cancellation mechanics. Another point of contention is the scope of exemptions for regulated industries and whether the bill should apply uniformly across all automatic-renewal arrangements; the bill resolves this by excluding insurance, service contracts, and certain utility/communications/energy services already subject to other regulators.