X.AI Lawsuit, Grok Subscribers Say Canceling SuperGrok Is Too Difficult

X.AI LLC and X.AI Corp., the companies behind Grok, are facing a putative class action that accuses them of making SuperGrok subscriptions far harder to cancel than to buy. The plaintiff, Devin Rose, says he paid $30 for a one-month plan in July 2025, could not finish canceling on the website or in the Grok app, and was charged $30 again in August, September and October 2025. [1]

The complaint says the cancellation path takes at least nine steps across seven screens. It was filed on June 11, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as Rose v. X.AI LLC et al., No. 5:26-cv-05648.

No class has been certified, no settlement has been announced, and X.AI has not been found liable. Everything below describes allegations, not proven facts.

Rose v. X.AI LLC: Quick Facts About the Grok Subscription Lawsuit

Detail	Information
Case name	Rose v. X.AI LLC et al.
Case number	5:26-cv-05648
Court	U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Filing date	June 11, 2026
Plaintiff	Devin Rose
Defendants	X.AI LLC and X.AI Corp.
Product	SuperGrok subscriptions
Initial charge alleged	$30 for one month, around July 12, 2025
Later charges alleged	$30 each, around August 12, September 12 and October 12, 2025
Alleged cancellation process	At least nine steps across seven screens
Laws cited in reporting	California automatic renewal and consumer-protection laws; Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA)
Other claims	Conversion, unjust enrichment
Plaintiff’s attorneys	James Austin Long (Long Law P.C.); Daniel Kieselstein (Wittels McInturff Palikovic)
Damages demanded	At least $100 million (a demand, not an award)
Class certified?	No
Settlement or claim form?	None announced

The public docket confirms the filing date and names Devin Rose, X.AI LLC and X.AI Corp. The docket summaries reviewed do not show a class certification or a ruling on the merits. [2]

What Does Devin Rose Allege Against X.AI About SuperGrok Cancellation?

SuperGrok is a paid subscription tied to Grok, X.AI’s AI assistant. Automatic renewal is legal in itself. The question is whether the company clearly disclosed the recurring charge, got the required consent and gave customers a workable way to cancel.

According to the complaint, Rose bought a one-month plan for $30 around July 12, 2025. He says he tried to cancel on both the Grok website and the app before the month ended, but the process was too long and confusing to finish. He then alleges three more $30 charges:

Approximate date	Alleged charge
July 12, 2025	Initial one-month plan: $30
August 12, 2025	Renewal charge: $30
September 12, 2025	Renewal charge: $30
October 12, 2025	Renewal charge: $30
Total	$120 (of which $90 is the three alleged unwanted renewals)

The complaint goes beyond one customer. It alleges the difficulty is built into the design and that X.AI collected large sums from customers who never meant to keep paying.

How Many Steps Does the Complaint Say It Takes to Cancel SuperGrok?

The complaint describes these features of the cancellation flow: [1]

• At least nine steps across at least seven screens, with a cancel option chosen at least five times.
• A first step that begins with an unlabeled icon.
• No appearance of the word “cancel” during the first four steps.
• Prominent buttons that push the customer to keep the plan, while cancel options are less visible.
• Discount offers that can interrupt the process.

Lawyers sometimes call this kind of design a “dark pattern.” That is the plaintiff’s theory about the interface, not a finding that X.AI meant to deceive anyone. A multi-step cancellation flow is not automatically illegal. The court will look at the actual screens, what each one said, and whether cancellation was blocked or merely required effort.

Which Laws Does the Rose v. X.AI Lawsuit Rely On?

California Automatic Renewal Law (Business and Professions Code §§ 17600–17606)

California’s Automatic Renewal Law regulates subscriptions that continue unless the customer cancels. It addresses clear disclosure of the renewal terms, affirmative consent, an acknowledgment of the terms and a straightforward way to cancel. The 2025 amendments apply to contracts entered into, amended or extended on or after July 1, 2025. [3] Rose says he subscribed around July 12, 2025, so the amended version may matter.

The statute generally expects a business to let customers cancel through the same kind of channel they used to sign up. It allows retention offers during cancellation, but with conditions meant to keep the customer able to finish canceling. Private plaintiffs usually enforce these rules through the Unfair Competition Law and related claims.

California Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code § 17200)

The Unfair Competition Law bars “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent” business practices, and a violation of another law, such as the Automatic Renewal Law, can supply the “unlawful” prong. Remedies are mostly restitution and injunctions, not ordinary damages. In Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020), the Ninth Circuit held that a federal plaintiff generally cannot get equitable restitution under California consumer statutes unless legal remedies are inadequate. Expect that point to come up in federal court. The limitations period is generally four years (§ 17208).

California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code §§ 1750–1784)

The Consumers Legal Remedies Act prohibits specified unfair or deceptive practices in consumer transactions. A claim for damages generally requires written notice to the business and 30 days to correct the problem under Civil Code § 1782. The limitations period is generally three years (§ 1783). Whether Rose satisfied the notice step is a question for the pleadings.

California False Advertising Law (Business and Professions Code § 17500 et seq.)

This law bars untrue or misleading statements in advertising. It is often pleaded next to the Unfair Competition Law in subscription cases, particularly where the price or the renewal terms are said to be unclear. The reporting reviewed does not confirm that Rose pleads it, so check the complaint.

Federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq.) and Regulation E

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1693e, a preauthorized electronic transfer from a consumer’s account must be authorized in writing, and the consumer must receive a copy. Regulation E (12 C.F.R. § 1005.10) adds that a consumer can stop a preauthorized transfer by notifying the bank at least three business days before the scheduled date. [4][7] Civil liability, including actual damages and statutory damages, is set by 15 U.S.C. § 1693m, and class recoveries are capped there. The limitations period is generally one year.

The EFTA covers electronic transfers from consumer accounts such as debit cards and bank debits. It does not automatically cover ordinary credit-card charges. How Rose paid will matter, which is why the complaint proposes a separate group of subscribers who paid by debit card or electronic bank transfer.

Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 8401–8405)

This federal law requires online sellers using negative-option offers to disclose the material terms clearly, get express informed consent before charging, and provide simple ways to stop recurring charges (15 U.S.C. § 8403). [8] ROSCA is enforced by the FTC and state attorneys general and has no private right of action, so a private plaintiff cannot sue under it directly. It still sets the national standard for what subscription sellers must do, and the FTC has used it in subscription cases. The reporting reviewed does not say Rose relies on it.

Conversion and unjust enrichment

Conversion is the wrongful exercise of control over someone else’s property. Rose’s theory is that money taken through unauthorized recurring charges can qualify. Unjust enrichment concerns a benefit a defendant should not equitably keep at another’s expense. Courts treat both claims carefully, particularly when contract or statutory claims already cover the same ground. No court has ruled on either claim here.

Is the FTC “Click-to-Cancel” Rule the Basis for the X.AI Lawsuit?

No. The FTC adopted an expanded Negative Option Rule in October 2024, but on July 8, 2025, the Eighth Circuit vacated it in Custom Communications, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 24-3137, citing procedural flaws in the rulemaking. [5] In March 2026 the FTC opened a new rulemaking and asked for public comment. [6]

So the Grok case is not an enforcement action under the vacated rule. Rose relies on California law and the EFTA. The vacatur also does not make hard-to-cancel subscriptions lawful. Other federal and state laws, including ROSCA and California’s Automatic Renewal Law, still apply.

Why Is the Rose v. X.AI Lawsuit in Federal Court?

The Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), generally lets a proposed class action be heard in federal court when the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and at least one class member is a citizen of a different state than a defendant. The complaint demands at least $100 million for a nationwide group, which fits that profile. Federal courts can still decline to hear parts of a case, and state-law claims are judged under California law.

What Is Devin Rose Asking For, and Who Would Be in the Proposed Class?

According to the reporting, Rose asks for a jury trial and seeks: [1]

• At least $100 million in compensatory damages.
• Restitution.
• Punitive damages.
• An injunction changing the alleged cancellation practices.

He wants to represent three groups:

1. A nationwide class of SuperGrok subscribers who were automatically renewed and charged.
2. A nationwide class of subscribers who paid by debit card or electronic bank transfer.
3. A California subclass for the state-law claims.

These definitions can change. A demand in a complaint is not a prediction of what anyone will receive.

Is Rose v. X.AI a Certified Class Action?

No. It is a putative class action, so only the named plaintiff is formally in the case. To go forward as a class, the group must meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, including common questions, typicality, adequacy of representation and the requirements for the type of class sought. Different claims may fit different groups. EFTA claims, for example, turn on payment method, and state-law claims turn on where the subscriber lived.

Do not assume you are represented, owed a payment or required to file a claim form. If a class is certified, a court-approved notice would normally reach eligible people.

What Defenses Could X.AI Raise in the Grok Cancellation Lawsuit?

Nothing in the reporting reviewed says X.AI has raised any of these. They are common in subscription cases:

• Arbitration and class-waiver terms. If the sign-up terms contain an arbitration clause with a class waiver, the company may try to move claims to individual arbitration. Under AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), such clauses are often enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, subject to state-law defenses.
• Adequate disclosure and consent. That the renewal terms were clear and the customer agreed.
• Cancellation was available. That a working cancellation path existed and Rose did not finish it, or cancelled through another channel.
• Payment channel. That Rose paid through an app store or credit card, which could undercut the EFTA claim.
• Standing and typicality. That one subscriber’s experience cannot represent others.
• No adequate remedy at law. The Sonner argument against restitution.

What Should Grok Subscribers Do If They Cannot Cancel SuperGrok?

There is no claim form or settlement program for this case. To stop future charges and protect yourself:

1. Find out where you subscribed. A subscription bought on Grok’s website is managed differently from one bought through an app store.
2. Screenshot every step of your cancellation attempt, and save confirmation emails and support tickets with dates.
3. Save billing records, including statements showing the first charge and any later ones.
4. Confirm that renewal actually stopped. Look for a written confirmation. Deleting the app does not cancel a subscription.
5. If you paid by debit or bank transfer: federal rules generally let you tell your bank to stop a preauthorized payment if you notify it at least three business days before the scheduled date. An unauthorized electronic transfer has its own, separate reporting deadlines, so do not wait.
6. If you paid by credit card: you can dispute a billing error in writing under the Fair Credit Billing Act (15 U.S.C. § 1666), generally within 60 days of the statement showing the charge. [9]
7. Do not pay anyone who promises a payout from this lawsuit. No settlement administrator exists for this case.

How Does the Grok Case Compare With Other Subscription Lawsuits?

Automatic-renewal disputes are a growing area of consumer litigation. These cases on this site involve different companies and different facts:

• Uber One Class Action Lawsuit, Enrolled Without Consent? covers recurring subscription enrollment, billing and cancellation allegations.
• Brigit Lawsuit, Cash Advance App Accused of Illegal Automatic Renewals, What Happened, Who Qualifies, and What to Do Now concerns a financial app’s alleged recurring memberships and cancellation barriers.
• NordVPN Sued For Deceptive Auto-Renewals Are You Affected? covers separate renewal allegations in several courts.

The outcome of one case does not prove the allegations in another.

What Happens Next in Rose v. X.AI?

The case is at an early stage. Likely next steps are X.AI’s response, possible motions to dismiss or to compel arbitration, discovery into the cancellation flow and billing records, and later a motion for class certification. Useful evidence may include recordings of the cancellation flow, the sign-up terms, renewal notices, Rose’s billing and support records, internal design documents and data on how other subscribers fared.

The docket summaries reviewed did not show a merits ruling. Check PACER or the Northern District of California docket for current filings before relying on any status. A settlement is possible in any class case, but none has been announced. If one is, it would need to define eligible customers, the relief and any claim deadline.

X.AI Grok Subscription Lawsuit Timeline

Date	Event
July 12, 2025 (approx.)	Rose says he bought a one-month SuperGrok plan for $30.
August 12, 2025 (approx.)	Rose alleges a second $30 charge.
September 12, 2025 (approx.)	Rose alleges a third $30 charge.
October 12, 2025 (approx.)	Rose alleges a fourth $30 charge.
June 11, 2026	Rose files the putative class action in the Northern District of California.
October 21, 2026	Top Class Actions publishes a report on the lawsuit.
October 22, 2026	No class certification, settlement or claim form identified in the records reviewed.

Frequently Asked Questions About the X.AI Grok Subscription Lawsuit

What is the X.AI Grok class action lawsuit about?

It is a putative class action claiming X.AI makes SuperGrok subscriptions hard to cancel and keeps charging customers who tried to stop.

What is the case number for Rose v. X.AI LLC?

The case number is 5:26-cv-05648, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Who is suing X.AI over Grok subscriptions?

Devin Rose is the named plaintiff. His attorneys are James Austin Long of Long Law P.C. and Daniel Kieselstein of Wittels McInturff Palikovic.

How much did Devin Rose allegedly pay X.AI?

He says he paid $30 for the first month and was charged $30 three more times, for $120 in total. The three later charges add up to $90.

How many steps does the complaint say cancelling SuperGrok takes?

At least nine steps across seven screens, with a cancel option selected at least five times. These are allegations, not findings.

What laws does the X.AI lawsuit cite?

Reporting identifies California’s automatic-renewal and consumer-protection laws, the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act, conversion and unjust enrichment.

Is X.AI the same as X Corp., formerly Twitter?

The named defendants are X.AI LLC and X.AI Corp. The case should not be described as a lawsuit against X Corp. unless the court caption or an amended complaint says so.

Is there an X.AI settlement or claim form for Grok subscribers?

No settlement or claim form had been identified as of October 22, 2026.

Has a class been certified in Rose v. X.AI?

No. Until a judge certifies a class, Rose is the only plaintiff formally in the case.

Is the FTC’s Click-to-Cancel rule the basis for the Rose v. X.AI lawsuit?

No. The Eighth Circuit vacated the FTC’s 2024 rule in July 2025, and the FTC began a new rulemaking in March 2026. The lawsuit relies on California law and the EFTA.

What should I do if X.AI keeps charging me for Grok?

Check where you subscribed, save proof of your cancellation attempt, keep billing records, and contact your bank or card issuer about disputing charges. Debit and bank-transfer payers can also use Regulation E’s stop-payment right, and credit-card payers can use the Fair Credit Billing Act.

Related Reading

• Uber One Class Action Lawsuit, Enrolled Without Consent?
• Brigit Lawsuit, Cash Advance App Accused of Illegal Automatic Renewals, What Happened, Who Qualifies, and What to Do Now
• NordVPN Sued For Deceptive Auto-Renewals Are You Affected?

Sources and Court Records

1. Top Class Actions, X.AI class action lawsuit alleges Grok subscriptions are difficult to cancel, October 21, 2026.
2. U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Rose v. X.AI LLC et al., No. 5:26-cv-05648, public docket.
3. California Business and Professions Code § 17602.
4. 15 U.S.C. § 1693e, preauthorized electronic fund transfers.
5. Eighth Circuit, Custom Communications, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 24-3137 (July 8, 2025).
6. Federal Trade Commission, FTC seeks public comment on a new rulemaking concerning negative-option marketing practices, March 11, 2026.
7. Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. Part 1005 and 15 U.S.C. § 1693m.
8. 15 U.S.C. § 8403, Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act.
9. 15 U.S.C. § 1666, Fair Credit Billing Act and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).

Disclaimer: General information only, not legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is not a law firm. The allegations are not court findings.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the federal court docket for Rose v. X.AI LLC et al., the Top Class Actions report, and the statutes, regulations, court opinions and FTC release cited above, as of October 22, 2026. Last Updated: October 22, 2026.