## Summary On the stated facts, the only viable statutory-damages claims are: - **Arlo**: $200 for noncompliant enrollment + $200 for noncompliant June 15 renewal = **$400**. - **Drea**: $500 for cancellation refusal + $500 for noncompliant September 15 renewal = **$1,000**. - **Total viable statutory damages: $1,400**. Bina and Cato have no viable claims: Bina’s July 3 renewal claim is time-barred; Cato’s cancellation claim fails under the former Act and his July 4 renewal claim is time-barred. --- ## Event-Specific Transition Rules The Act is not “one version for the whole subscription.” The transition rules require event-by-event analysis: - **Enrollment** is governed by the law in effect on the enrollment date. - **Each renewal** is governed by the law in effect on the renewal date. - **Cancellation requests and refusals** are governed by the law in effect when the request is received. - Later communications repeating an earlier refusal do not create a new violation. - Pre-July 1, 2025 claims keep the old two-year limitations period. - Post-July 1, 2025 claims have a one-year limitations period. - Filing after the amendment does not make the amended Act apply to earlier conduct. - A continuing-violation theory does not revive expired claims or make old defects recur at each renewal. --- ## Arlo — Pre-July Events, Former Act, Timely ### 1. Enrollment on May 15, 2025 Governing law: **former Act**, because the enrollment date is before July 1, 2025. The enrollment page omitted the renewal price. That violates the former Act’s requirement of clear renewal terms before initial enrollment. - Remedy: **$200** for noncompliant enrollment. - Limitations: Claim accrued before July 1, 2025; former two-year period applies. - Filing on August 1, 2026 is timely. ### 2. Automatic renewal on June 15, 2025 Governing law: **former Act**, because the renewal occurred before July 1, 2025. Northwind sent no reminder before the automatic renewal. That is a separate noncompliant renewal. - Remedy: **$200** for noncompliant renewal. - Limitations: accrued before July 1, 2025; two-year period; timely. Arlo does not have a cancellation claim because he did not cancel. The amended $500 damages do not apply. **Arlo total: $400.** --- ## Bina — Post-July Renewal, But Time-Barred ### 1. Enrollment on June 20, 2025 Governing law: **former Act**. The disclosure was compliant, so there is no enrollment claim. ### 2. Automatic renewal on July 3, 2025 Governing law: **amended Act**, because the renewal occurred on or after July 1, 2025. Northwind failed to send the reminder/renewal disclosure required by the amended Act. That is a noncompliant renewal. - Remedy: **$500** under the amended Act. - Limitations: Claim accrued on July 3, 2025. The one-year period expired on July 3, 2026. - Suit filed August 1, 2026 is **late**. The claim is not revived by alleging that the renewal was part of a continuing course. **Bina total: no viable claim.** --- ## Cato — Pre-July Cancellation Request, Post-July Renewal Time-Barred ### 1. June 30 cancellation request and July 2 response Governing law: **former Act**. Cato’s cancellation request was received on June 30, 2025, before the amendment. Under Rule 5, the request and any refusal to honor it are governed by the law in effect when the request was received. Under the former Act, Northwind had clearly disclosed a phone cancellation method. Cato used the general web chat instead. The former Act allowed cancellation by the disclosed method; it did not require Northwind to accept an alternative method. Northwind’s July 2 reply saying he must use the phone method is tied back to the June 30 request. It is not a new post-July violation, and the amended Act’s one-step online cancellation requirement does not apply to this request. So Cato has **no cancellation claim**. ### 2. July 4 automatic renewal Governing law: **amended Act**, because the renewal occurred after July 1, 2025. Northwind did not send the amended Act’s renewal reminder before the July 4 renewal. That is a substantive violation. - Remedy: **$500**. - Limitations: Claim accrued on July 4, 2025. The one-year period expired on July 4, 2026. - Suit filed August 1, 2026 is **late**. No continuing-violation theory can revive it. **Cato total: no viable claim.** --- ## Drea — Post-July Violations, Timely ### 1. Enrollment on September 1, 2025 Governing law: **amended Act**. The disclosure was compliant, so no enrollment claim. ### 2. September 10 cancellation refusal Governing law: **amended Act**, because the cancellation request was received after July 1, 2025. Drea enrolled online. The amended Act required a one-step online cancellation method. Instead, Northwind required five additional chat screens and then rejected her cancellation request. That is a noncompliant cancellation refusal. - Remedy: **$500**. - Limitations: Claim accrued on September 10, 2025. One-year period ends September 10, 2026. - Filing on August 1, 2026 is **timely**. ### 3. September 15 automatic renewal Governing law: **amended Act**, because the renewal occurred after July 1, 2025. Northwind sent no renewal reminder before this renewal. That is a separate noncompliant renewal, even though it is connected to the failed cancellation attempt. - Remedy: **$500**. - Limitations: Claim accrued on September 15, 2025. One-year period ends September 15, 2026. - Filing on August 1, 2026 is **timely**. **Drea total: $1,000.** --- ## Effect of the Transition Clauses on Preexisting Agreements For agreements entered before July 1, 2025: - The **old Act** governs conduct occurring before July 1, including initial enrollment, pre-July renewals, and cancellation requests received before July 1. - The **amended Act** governs renewals and cancellation requests occurring on or after July 1, even under pre-existing agreements. - The amended Act does **not** retroactively change the legality or remedy for pre-July conduct. - A prior enrollment defect does not make later renewals new violations. Each renewal must be evaluated on its own date and duties. --- ## Rejecting the Parties’ Global Theories - **Northwind’s “one version for the whole agreement” theory** is wrong. Rules 3, 4, 5, and 6 expressly assign different versions to different events. - **Plaintiffs’ “filing after July 1 makes everything amended” theory** is wrong. Rule 8 says filing after the amendment does not change the law governing earlier conduct. - **Plaintiffs’ “every renewal keeps earlier defects alive” theory** is wrong. Rules 9 and 10 reject continuing-violation treatment and revival of expired claims. --- ## Northwind’s Answer and Settlement Posture Northwind should: 1. **Arlo claims**: Not contest that the facts, if proven, show two former-Act violations. Maximum exposure: **$400**. Settlement value: about **$400**. 2. **Bina claim**: Assert the one-year statute of limitations and move to dismiss. No settlement payment. 3. **Cato claims**: Assert former Act governs the cancellation request and the one-year limitations bar for the July 4 renewal. No settlement payment. 4. **Drea claims**: Exposure is **$1,000** for two separate amended-Act violations. Settlement value: about **$1,000**. 5. **Global cap**: On the stated facts, Northwind should resist any settlement demand above roughly **$1,400** plus costs. Demands based on $500 for Arlo, continuing violations, or revival of Bina/Cato’s expired claims should be rejected.