The Washington State Attorney General has reached a $2.25 million settlement with cleaning service Homeaglow Inc. over allegations that the company enrolled customers in a recurring membership program without adequate disclosure and made false claims about its customer review ratings.

According to the complaint filed in King County Superior Court alongside the consent decree, Homeaglow advertised a three-hour cleaning for $19 in a manner that led consumers to believe they were purchasing a one-time discounted service. The company allegedly enrolled those customers in its $59-per-month "ForeverClean" recurring membership without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the subscription. Homeaglow also failed to disclose per-cleaning transaction fees of 5% to 15%, the state said.

The membership carried a six-month minimum term, and customers who attempted to cancel early were charged the undiscounted price of the $19 cleaning as a termination fee. The AG's office noted that a consumer who had already paid $295 in monthly membership dues would still owe $153.50 upon early cancellation. This outcome, the state argued, was inconsistent with Homeaglow's repeated in-purchase representations that customers could "cancel at anytime" and that purchases were "fully refundable." While the company's website fine print and a pop-up tooltip did reference automatic enrollment and additional fees, the state concluded those disclosures were not clear and conspicuous and did not include all material terms.

The complaint also alleged that Homeaglow made false claims about its customer review ratings, including advertising a five-star "excellent" rating on Trustpilot based on 6,406 reviews, when Trustpilot's actual data reflected a 1.3-star average from just over 2,000 reviews. The company allegedly suppressed negative reviews on its own site to maintain a 4.8-star average, and continued running the Trustpilot advertisement after receiving a letter from the platform flagging fabricated reviews. The Better Business Bureau issued three consumer alerts about the company and assigned it an F rating.

Takeaway for advertisers: The Homeaglow settlement is a reminder that the FTC is not the only regulator focused on negative option marketing. State attorneys general have independent authority to pursue deceptive subscription practices under state consumer protection statutes, even in the absence of a specific automatic renewal law. Both the negative option and review rating claims were brought under Washington's Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce. Advertisers with negative option programs and consumer-facing rating claims should be mindful that federal and state enforcers can, and do, pursue the same conduct on parallel tracks.