Looking at the filing date of August 1, 2026, I need to apply the different statute of limitations rules: claims arising before July 1, 2025 have a two-year window (so they're timely through 2027), while claims on or after August 1, 2025 have a one-year window. This means events between July 1-31, 2025 are time-barred since a year has already passed by the filing date. Arlo's enrollment on May 15, 2025 falls in the pre-July 1 category, so it's timely.

For Arlo specifically, the omitted renewal price disclosure accrued May 15, 2025 and expires May 15, 2027 — timely for $200. The renewal violation on June 15, 2025 also accrued before July 1, so it expires June 15, 2027 — timely for another $200, totaling $400 with no cancellation claim.

Bina's enrollment on June 20, 2025 was compliant under the former Act, so no claim there. Her renewal on July 3, 2025 falls under the amended Act with a $500 damages claim, but that accrual date triggers the one-year limitation expiring July 3, 2026 — before the August 1, 2026 filing date, so her claim is time-barred. The amended Act's higher remedy is offset by the shorter limitations period, and the continuing violation doctrine doesn't revive it.

Cato's March 2025 enrollment disclosed phone cancellation as permitted under the former Act.

For Cato's June 30 cancellation request via web chat, that request is governed by the former Act since it was received June 30. Since phone was the disclosed method and chat wasn't, Northwind's refusal to honor the non-conforming request doesn't violate the former Act. The July 2 response merely restates the earlier refusal, so the violation date stays June 30 under the former Act — no violation occurred, and the amended one-step online cancellation duty doesn't apply retroactively to a request received before July 1.

For the July 4 renewal, the amended Act applies, and Northwind failed to send a renewal reminder, which is a $500 violation. However, the claim accrued July 4, 2025, with a one-year deadline of July 4, 2026, making Cato's filing on August 1, 2026 time-barred.

Drea's September 1 enrollment was compliant with disclosure requirements. Her September 10 cancellation request falls under the amended Act, which requires one-step online cancellation for online-enrolled subscriptions — Northwind's five extra screens and rejection constitute a noncompliant refusal worth $500. The claim accrued September 10, 2025, with a one-year deadline of September 10, 2026, so her August 1, 2026 filing is timely. Now examining the September 15 renewal without a reminder under the amended Act... Conceding Drea's $1,000 seems prudent given the liability strength, though I should push back on whether the five chat screens after cancellation truly violate the one-step requirement—that's fairly defensible. Bina and Cato merit dismissal under the limitations defense; Cato has additional grounds. I need to clarify whether plaintiffs' July 1 filing-date theory even applies to Arlo under rule 8, and whether applying an amended remedy would change the limitations analysis tied to accrual rather than remedy date.

For Bina, the July 3 renewal claim likely accrued before the one-year bar kicked in—only about four weeks of cushion. There's no relation-back or tolling argument available here. On the enrollment disclosure front, Bina's June 20 enrollment predates the amended Act's one-step cancellation requirement, so no violation there; the disclosure duties were governed by the law in effect at enrollment. Cato's trickier: he could face the amended one-step duty if he made a post-July 1 request, but his July 2 cancellation attempt was Northwind's response, not a fresh request—the distinction matters for whether the amended rule applies to him.

Even if Cato had renewed his request after July 1, any resulting $500 refusal claim would accrue in July 2025 and hit the one-year bar by then anyway, so timing works against him either way. Northwind's system log showing the June 30 receipt actually helps their position by pinning the refusal to pre-amendment, when no one-step method was required. For Drea, exposure caps at $1,000 plus fees and injunctive relief, but the real exposure multiplies with each renewal after mid-September 2025—each one's a fresh $500 event if the one-step cancellation method isn't fixed.

The bigger hidden risk is whether Arlo's subscription kept renewing monthly after June 15 with no reminders sent; the facts only mention one renewal, but if it continued through August 2025 onward, each renewal generates a timely $500 claim that wasn't pleaded. That's a critical diligence gap to flag.

Now I'm mapping out the framework: I need to work through each customer event-by-event, tracking which version of the statute