Published
December 23, 2025
Updated
July 29, 2026
This settlement resolves claims that Wells Fargo helped three groups of marketers — the Apex, Triangle and Tarr entities — run online "free trial" offers that quietly enrolled consumers in recurring monthly billing. It covers anyone charged that way since 2009, and the claim window closed in March 2026.
Current Status
Claims are closed. Claim forms had to be submitted online or postmarked by March 4, 2026, and the deadlines to exclude yourself or object both passed on March 5, 2026. The final approval hearing was scheduled for March 26, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As of July 29, 2026, no final approval order and no payment date had been located in public sources — a scheduled hearing is not an approval order.StatusClaims Closed — Final Approval Not ConfirmedHearing set for March 26, 2026; no order located as of July 29, 2026.
Claim DeadlineMarch 4, 2026New claims are not accepted.
Settlement Fund$33,000,000Documented losses pro rata, or a flat payment of up to $20 without documentation
Proof RequiredNoThe flat tier needed only a sworn certification; documented-loss claims required records.
What Was the Case About?
A $33 million settlement was reached in consolidated lawsuits alleging that Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. helped companies known as the Apex Entities, Triangle Entities and Tarr Entities run deceptive online free-trial and recurring-billing programs. According to the complaints, consumers were drawn in by offers such as a risk-free trial for the cost of shipping and handling, then charged full price and enrolled in monthly continuity plans without clear consent.The lawsuits claimed that Wells Fargo opened bank accounts for dozens of related companies and moved millions of dollars into third-party accounts, which plaintiffs alleged allowed the programs to operate and process recurring payments. Wells Fargo denies all wrongdoing and denies liability, and the court has not decided who is right. The settlement was reached to avoid the uncertainty, burden and expense of continued litigation.
Who Are Apex, Triangle and Tarr?
Three groups of marketers ran similar free-trial and continuity offers across supplements, skin care, e-cigarettes and related products.Tarr — Tarr Inc., Ad Kings LLC, Apex Advertising LLC, Brand Development Corp. and related marketing companies, promoting products such as Alpha Rush Pro, Elite Test 360, Fat Burn X, Garcinia Cambogia Slim Fast, Miracle Green Coffee, Ripped Muscle X, Superior Muscle X and The Memory Plus, along with various skin care and anti-wrinkle creams.
Apex — Apex Capital Group, LLC and various international affiliates, marketing products including Evermax, Testro, Biogenic, DermaC, Lumera, Juveliere, Dermanique, Garcinia and SlimBody, plus pet products such as OptimalPet.
Triangle — Triangle Media Corporation, Jasper Rain Marketing LLC and Hardwire Interactive Inc., selling Advanced Trim, BioSlim Burn, Erase Repair HA, Eye-Fi, Garcinia Lean Xtreme, NO Max Shred, OxyGenius, Synagen IQ and other supplements and beauty products.
Which Products Were Covered?
| Tarr products | Apex products | Triangle products |
|---|---|---|
| Alpha Rush Pro | Evermax | Advanced Trim |
| Beauty Labs | Virility | BioSlim Burn |
| Bella Labs Instant Wrinkle Reducer | Testro | Body Boost Garcinia |
| Biofinite | Biogenic | Body Restore Cleanse |
| Brain Storm Elite | Celexas | Cerebral X |
| Cellublast | NeuroXR | Erase Repair HA |
| Crème del Mar | ElitePro | Eye-Fi |
| Dermarose Eye Serum | DermaC | Garcinia Clean XT |
| Dermarose Face Cream | NeuroSleep | Garcinia Lean Xtreme |
| Elite Test 360 | TestoXR | Nature Renew Cleanse |
| Fat Burn X | Flawless | NO Max Shred |
| Fat Shred X | Follicure | OxyGenius |
| Flawless Raspberry Ketone | FocusZX1 | PhytoLyft |
Did the FTC Act on These Programs?
Before this settlement, the Federal Trade Commission brought separate enforcement actions against Tarr, Triangle and Apex. The FTC alleged that the companies marketed online trial offers as free or low cost, failed to clearly disclose that consumers would be enrolled in recurring billing, charged consumers monthly without proper consent, and made cancellation or refunds difficult.The FTC created refund programs for certain consumers, and that history matters here: some class members had already received FTC money and others had not, and the settlement treated those groups differently for filing purposes.
Who Was Covered?
A person was potentially in the class if they were enrolled in recurring billing by any Tarr, Triangle or Apex entity, at any time from 2009 onward, tied to one of the covered consumer products — personal care items, electronic cigarettes, or dietary, health or beauty supplements marketed for weight loss, muscle development, hair growth, skin care, sexual performance or cognitive ability.Who Had to File a Claim?
Whether a claim form was required depended on prior FTC refunds:• If you previously received an FTC refund for Apex or Triangle, you did not need to file for an additional payment tied to those entities — a further payment could come automatically through the FTC refund program, subject to any minimum threshold. If you were also enrolled by a Tarr entity, you still had to file for the Tarr portion.
• If you did not receive an FTC refund, or you were enrolled by a Tarr entity, you had to submit a timely, valid claim form to receive anything.
What Did the Settlement Provide?
The $33 million fund pays approved claims, notice and administration costs, court-approved attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, and service awards to the class representatives if approved. Claimants could either document their out-of-pocket losses and receive a pro rata share, or take a flat payment of up to $20 without documentation. Both types were subject to pro rata reduction, allocation rules among the three entity groups, and minimum thresholds, so final amounts depend on the volume and size of approved claims.What Proof Was Required?
For the flat payment of up to $20, no documentation was required — but claimants had to certify under penalty of perjury that they were enrolled in recurring billing by a covered entity, briefly describe the product and dates, and disclose any refunds or reimbursements received. For a documented-loss payment, claimants had to provide records of the charges and disclose any refunds or chargebacks. Because the flat tier needed no records and no administrator-issued identifier, this page is marked Proof Required: No.What Happens Next?
The remaining steps are the court's ruling on final approval, resolution of any appeal, and distribution to approved claimants. No final approval order and no payment date had been announced as of July 29, 2026. Updates are posted on the official settlement website.Official information is available at Free Trial Recurring Billing Settlement.
Important Dates
• Class period: 2009 onward• Claim deadline: March 4, 2026
• Exclusion deadline: March 5, 2026
• Objection deadline: March 5, 2026
• Final approval hearing: March 26, 2026 at 1:30 p.m.
Sources
• Official settlement website: Free Trial Recurring Billing Settlement• Long-form notice and settlement documents posted by the settlement administrator
• McNamara v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-1245, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Settlement Fund
$33,000,000
Case Title
McNamara v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.
Case Number
3:21-cv-1245
Court
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Claim Deadline
March 4, 2026
Final Approval Hearing
March 26, 2026 at 1:30 p.m.
No ruling located as of July 29, 2026.
Status
Claims Closed — Final Approval Not Confirmed
Official Website
Free Trial Recurring Billing Settlement
