5 ARL violations, 1 lawsuit: the AG1 compliance checklist

AG1, formerly Athletic Greens, built one of the most recognizable subscription businesses in wellness. In February 2026, it was sued over an ARL complaint that's unusual for this litigation wave: most complaints allege one or two violation categories. This one reaches into four of the ARL's core requirements at once: disclosure, consent, cancellation, and the post-purchase acknowledgment, plus a fifth argument that the checkout's strikethrough pricing misrepresented the recurring charge.

The case was voluntarily dismissed four months after filing, most likely the result of private negotiations. That's not always the outcome: many brands facing similar allegations settle instead, because for small-to-mid-sized brands, settlement is simply the more economical choice than fighting.

The case, summarized

Hoke v. AG1 (USA), Inc. alleges AG1 enrolled customers in an auto-renewing subscription without the disclosures and affirmative consent the ARL requires, then charged them every month until they took steps to cancel. The complaint quotes the entire disclosure a customer saw about the recurring charge:

“By continuing with your payment, you agree to the future charges listed on this page and the cancellation policy.”

AG1 checkout page, per the complaint

According to the filing, that sentence appeared in miniscule font below the payment button, and was only visible if a customer expanded a collapsed "Order summary" dropdown they had no reason to open. No checkbox was required, and the disclosure never stated that clicking the payment button meant agreeing to those terms.

Did a dismissal without trial mean AG1 "won"?

AG1 requested two extensions before dismissing, suggesting negotiations were already underway. No settlement or admission of liability appears on the public docket, a quieter resolution than Oura's case, where the defendant fought with a motion to compel arbitration before the suit was dropped.

“AG1 got the best outcome short of never being sued. That outcome still cost far more than a proactive audit would have.”

A 90-second primer: what the ARL actually requires

• 1Clear and conspicuous disclosure of renewal terms, in visual proximity to the request for consent
• 2Affirmative consent: an active agreement, not one implied by completing a purchase
• 3An easy, at-will cancellation mechanism, as easy as the signup was
• 4A post-purchase acknowledgment confirming the terms and how to cancel
• 5No misleading language anywhere in the offer (an adjacent claim, not a core ARL requirement)

The AG1 complaint alleges the company missed four of the five.

Score your own checkout

A caution first: having a disclosure isn't the same as having a compliant one. In Chabolla v. ClassPass, the court described a renewal notice as "notably timid in both size and color." The words were there, the visual weight wasn't. In Fugate v. PeopleWhiz, "Terms of Use" used the same capitalization style as marketing phrases like "Almost Done," so nothing set the legal language apart. Both checkouts would look fine on a quick glance. Neither held up.

• Non-conspicuous disclosure: can a customer see the exact price, frequency, and "this renews automatically" language without scrolling, and does it actually stand out from the surrounding text?
• No affirmative consent: does your checkout require a separate, active action to agree, or is auto-renew just the unchosen default?
• A bad cancellation mechanism: can a customer cancel online in the same or fewer steps than it took to sign up?
• A missing or incomplete post-purchase email: does your confirmation spell out price, frequency, and a working cancellation link?
• Misleading or ambiguous language: would a first-time visitor know within five seconds this is a recurring charge?

0–1 "no" answers, and your "yes" answers hold up to the font-and-contrast test above: solid footing, worth confirming with a formal audit. 2–3 "no" answers: real exposure. This exact combination has driven several recent filings. 4–5: close to the AG1 fact pattern. Treat it as urgent.

Having a policy doesn't mean you're not exposed

AG1 had all the basics: a disclosure, a cancellation flow, a confirmation email. Companies at their scale don't skip fundamentals. But most ARL complaints aren't about missing pieces. They're about whether those pieces meet the ARL's specific bar for clear, conspicuous, and actively consented-to. That gap between "we have this" and "our version would hold up in court" is where most ARL cases live.