Dazzling Cleaning Accused of Hiding Membership Charges in $19 Offer

Case Overview: A class action claims Dazzling Cleaning used misleading online promotions to lure consumers into recurring charges they did not expect, violating California's honest pricing laws.

Consumers Affected: California consumers who were charged renewal or cancellation fees in connection with Dazzling Cleaning’s ForeverClean Membership.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

A federal complaint filed in California claims Dazzling Cleaning used misleading online promotions to lure consumers into recurring charges they didn’t expect. The lawsuit targets a widely advertised offer for a $19 house cleaning that allegedly resulted in automatic enrollment in a paid monthly plan.

Two California residents say they were caught off guard by charges they never agreed to, and they’re now asking the court to step in.

Promotional Price Allegedly Concealed a Monthly Subscription

According to the plaintiffs, the company’s promotional offer promises a one-time house cleaning for just $19. Customers see this price when they visit the website and select a cleaner. The marketing does not indicate that the discounted cleaning is tied to a long-term commitment.

Instead, the suit says, consumers discover they have been signed up for a $49 per month ForeverClean Membership only after entering their payment details. By that point, many have already scheduled a cleaning, assuming it was a one-time service.

The lawsuit states: “Consumers seeking to book the advertised, one-off, discounted cleaning with Homeaglow must then navigate to one of the Websites. The Websites similarly represent a promotion to ‘Get Clean for $19.’ As such, a consumer booking a cleaning has no expectancy that they are starting an on-going membership with Homeaglow.”

Canceling Early Reportedly Triggers Penalties

The complaint also calls out the company’s cancellation policy. According to the lawsuit, those who try to back out of the membership before completing a six-month term face an early termination fee. The fee is applied even though consumers claim they were never aware they had signed up for a subscription in the first place.

Both plaintiffs say they wouldn’t have gone through with the cleaning had they known it involved an ongoing payment plan and potential cancellation penalties.

Consumers Say They Didn’t Get What They Paid For

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs explain they felt misled and financially harmed by the way the company advertised its services. What looked like a quick, affordable cleaning allegedly became an unexpected monthly charge.

This kind of setup, they say, left customers feeling trapped. Rather than receiving a flat-fee service as advertised, they were allegedly drawn into a plan that renewed automatically, without their knowledge or informed consent.

Some consumers also reported trouble canceling the membership or reaching customer support. According to the lawsuit, this created additional frustration and costs.

Subscription Tactics Under Legal Scrutiny

This lawsuit follows others that accuse online retailers and subscription services of using misleading sign-up flows and unclear billing terms. Similar complaints have been filed against brands that advertise low-cost offers while quietly enrolling customers into recurring billing cycles.

In one recent case, Fabletics was sued over its VIP Membership Program, which allegedly billed customers for credits without proper disclosures. That lawsuit also involved automatic renewals, consent issues, and expiration of unused benefits.

As online promotions continue to blur the lines between one-time purchases and recurring programs, courts are being asked to examine whether companies have met their obligations to disclose pricing structures up front.

In the Dazzling Cleaning case, the plaintiffs are asking the court to certify a class of all California consumers who were charged renewal or cancellation fees in connection with Dazzling Cleaning’s ForeverClean Membership. They also request reimbursement of those charges and return of any profits earned through the alleged scheme.

In addition, the complaint calls for public injunctive relief to prevent future transactions under the same structure. The plaintiffs are also seeking attorneys’ fees and other costs related to the litigation.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Seth Seneca, et al. v. Homeaglow Inc.
• Case Number: 8:23-cv-02308
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Plaintiffs' Attorney:

• Craig M. Nicholas, Shaun Markley and Jordan Belcastro (Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP)

Were you charged unexpected fees by Dazzling Cleaning after a $19 offer? Share your experience below.