Crepe Erase Lawsuit: Roberts Class Action and $8.5M Settlement

The active Crepe Erase lawsuit is Roberts v. The Body Firm, LLC, a proposed class action filed in California federal court on November 20, 2025, accusing the brand’s seller of advertising a fake “regular” price to make a permanent selling price look like a 25% discount. Crepe Erase is sold by The Body Firm, LLC, a company affiliated with direct-response marketer Guthy-Renker. Separately, hundreds of consumers have complained about surprise subscription charges, and Guthy-Renker paid $8.5 million in 2019 to settle auto-renewal claims involving other product lines, though no class action targeting Crepe Erase’s subscription billing has been certified.

What the Roberts Class Action Alleges

Teresa Roberts, a California consumer, filed Roberts v. The Body Firm, LLC (Case No. 2:25-cv-11126) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint targets the “Age-Defying Body & Face Kit” and alleges The Body Firm runs a “perpetual” false discount scheme.¹

According to the filing, the kit is marketed at “25% OFF” with strike-through pricing implying a regular price of $79.95. Roberts says the company never actually charges that price. The real selling price, she alleges, is $59.95, and the “discount” is simply the normal price with a fictitious reference number placed next to it. The complaint also claims countdown timers on the website manufacture urgency around deals that run continuously, rebranded for different seasons.²

The complaint raises seven causes of action, including violations of California’s False Advertising Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition Law, plus claims for negligent and intentional misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of express warranty. Roberts seeks to represent all U.S. purchasers who bought the product at a purported discount within the applicable limitations period.¹

The case is in its early stages. No class has been certified, no settlement has been reached, and no ruling on the merits has been reported as of early 2026.

Billing and Cancellation Complaints

The Roberts case focuses on pricing, not subscriptions. But most public complaints about Crepe Erase center on billing. The Better Business Bureau lists 323 complaints against Crepe Erase over a three-year period, with 248 closed in the most recent 12 months. The company is not BBB-accredited.³

The recurring pattern in those complaints: customers say they ordered what they believed was a one-time purchase or trial kit and later discovered they had been enrolled in an automatic replenishment subscription. Many report trouble locating a cancellation option online or reaching a representative who would process the cancellation. Some say shipments and charges continued after they asked to cancel, and in certain cases unpaid balances were referred to collection agencies.³

In its responses through the BBB, Crepe Erase maintains that subscription terms are disclosed on its website above the “Pay Now” button and in order confirmation emails. The company says replenishment kits are billed in three monthly installments and that canceling stops future shipments but does not erase balances on orders already processed. Crepe Erase points to a 60-day money-back guarantee, though customers note that return shipping falls on the buyer. When consumers escalate through the BBB, the company often clears outstanding balances and closes the account as what it describes as a “gesture of goodwill.”³

No class action targeting Crepe Erase’s subscription billing has been certified, and no FTC enforcement action specific to Crepe Erase has been publicly announced.

Guthy-Renker’s $8.5 Million Auto-Renewal Settlement

The billing complaints against Crepe Erase resemble claims Guthy-Renker has already paid to resolve for other product lines. In February 2019, the company settled an enforcement action brought by the California Automatic Renewal Task Force, a coalition of prosecutors from Santa Monica, San Diego County, Los Angeles County, Santa Clara County, and Santa Cruz County.⁴

The lawsuit, filed February 1, 2019, in Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleged that Guthy-Renker charged customers for repeated shipments of Proactiv acne products and Wen hair products without first obtaining proper consent for automatic renewals.⁵ The $8.5 million total included $1.2 million in civil penalties and up to $7.3 million in restitution. Restitution covered Wen customers charged after May 2012 and Proactiv customers charged between mid-2014 and August 2016.⁴

The settlement required Guthy-Renker to conspicuously disclose auto-renewal terms on its websites, obtain explicit consent through a separate checkbox, provide a clear post-purchase summary of terms, and offer an easy cancellation process. Those injunctive requirements addressed Guthy-Renker’s sales practices broadly, not just Proactiv and Wen.⁶ Guthy-Renker had also previously resolved a separate class action, Habelito v. Guthy-Renker LLC, paying $2.5 million in restitution and over $5 million in attorney fees for Proactiv auto-renewal issues involving purchases before July 2014.⁴

What Legal Protections Cover Subscription Customers

If you were signed up for a Crepe Erase subscription you didn’t knowingly agree to, two frameworks apply. California’s Automatic Renewal Law (Business and Professions Code sections 17600 through 17606) requires businesses to make renewal terms clear and conspicuous, obtain affirmative consent without pre-checked boxes, and provide a retainable confirmation with cancellation instructions. Amendments effective July 2025 added requirements to send reminders before free trials expire, allow online cancellation of online subscriptions, and give advance written notice of price increases on renewals.⁷

Under California law, products delivered through an unauthorized subscription can be treated as “unconditional gifts,” meaning the consumer owes nothing and may be entitled to a full refund. At the federal level, the FTC finalized its “Click-to-Cancel” rule on October 16, 2024, designed to make ending recurring subscriptions easier. The FTC denied a joint petition for a stay in December 2024, and as of early 2026 the agency is seeking public comment on potential further amendments.⁷

If you bought the Age-Defying Body & Face Kit believing you were getting a discount, the Roberts case may cover you if it moves forward and a class is certified. If your issue is unwanted subscription charges, no certified class action currently covers that, but the BBB complaint route has produced refunds and account closures in many individual cases, and California’s ARL gives California residents an independent basis to dispute the charges.

1
ClassAction.org. Roberts v. The Body Firm Complaint
2
ClassAction.org. Class Action Lawsuit Alleges The Body Firm Touts False Discounts, Limited-Time Deals
3
Better Business Bureau. Crepe Erase BBB Complaints
4
City of Santa Monica. Guthy-Renker Settles $8.5 Million Automatic Renewal Case With California Prosecutors
5
NBC San Diego. Guthy-Renker LLC California Automatic Renewal Task Force Lawsuit
6
LA Business Journal. Guthy-Renker Settles $8.5M Lawsuit Over Auto-Renewal
7
FTC. Negative Option Rule