Class Actions Lawsuits
Consumer Fraud

X.AI Class Action Lawsuit Over Grok Subscriptions

X.AI Class Action Lawsuit Over Grok Subscriptions — Consumer Fraud class action lawsuit

Case Overview

The lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Devin Rose against X.AI LLC and X.AI Corp. The core allegation is that the company conceals automatic renewal terms for its SuperGrok plans and implements a cancellation process that is intentionally difficult and confusing for consumers.

Rose claims that after paying for a one-month SuperGrok plan, he was unable to cancel the service despite multiple attempts. The lawsuit further alleges that X.AI billed him repeatedly without authorization. Specifically, the suit claims X.AI violated California consumer protection laws and the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which mandates written consent for recurring electronic payments, and also asserts claims of conversion and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of SuperGrok subscribers who experienced unauthorized automatic renewals and charges. The lawsuit demands a jury trial and requests injunctive relief, restitution, punitive damages, and at least $100 million in compensatory damages. The plaintiff is represented by James Austin Long of Long Law P.C. and Daniel Kieselstein of Wittels McInturff Palikovic.

Who May Qualify

A nationwide class of SuperGrok subscribers who were automatically renewed and charged, a nationwide class of those who paid by debit card or electronic bank transfer, and a California subclass.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the lawsuit about?

The class action lawsuit alleges that X.AI makes it difficult to cancel SuperGrok subscriptions and uses deceptive automatic renewal methods to keep customers paying for services they no longer want.

What laws does the lawsuit claim were violated?

The lawsuit alleges violations of California consumer protection laws and the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which requires written consent for recurring electronic payments.

Who is representing the plaintiff?

The plaintiff is represented by James Austin Long of Long Law P.C. and Daniel Kieselstein of Wittels McInturff Palikovic.

Related Cases

Kroger Class Action Lawsuit Over 'Zero Sugar' Syrup Labeling — Consumer Fraud class action lawsuit

Kroger Class Action Lawsuit Over 'Zero Sugar' Syrup Labeling

Current
Consumer Fraud
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kroger alleging that the company falsely markets its Simple Truth syrup as 'Zero Sugar.' The plaintiff claims the syrup contains allulose, a sugar, despite the labeling suggesting otherwise.
View Details
Google and UPS Package Tracking Data Sharing Lawsuit — Consumer Fraud class action lawsuit

Google and UPS Package Tracking Data Sharing Lawsuit

Current
Consumer Fraud
Two consumers have filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Google and UPS's package tracking system improperly shares users' private data with various third parties. The plaintiffs claim that the system misled users into believing their information was secure when they used the tracking widget on Google Search.
View Details
Starbucks COBRA Notice Class Action Settlement — Consumer Fraud class action lawsuit

Starbucks COBRA Notice Class Action Settlement

Current
Consumer Fraud
Starbucks has agreed to a settlement to resolve claims that it did not provide proper Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) notices to former employees. The settlement benefits former employees who were sent a COBRA notice between July 21, 2016, and January 1, 2023, and did not elect continuation coverage.
View Details