A class action lawsuit filed in Massachusetts federal court accuses NordVPN, one of the world's largest virtual private network providers, of quietly overcharging customers through deceptive subscription practices. The case, Rene Tio v. NordVPN S.A. and Tefincom S.A. d/b/a NordVPN, adds to mounting litigation against the company, which is also facing similar lawsuits in California, Colorado, New York, Illinois, and North Carolina.
The lawsuit alleges that NordVPN quietly increases subscription renewal prices without proper notice, charges customers weeks before their subscriptions actually renew, and denies timely refund requests despite advertising a "30-day money-back guarantee." According to the complaint, NordVPN's website and checkout process do not clearly disclose that renewal prices will increase once the initial subscription ends. Many users only discover the higher charges when reviewing their credit card statements. Worse, NordVPN charges the higher renewal price roughly two weeks before the renewal date, effectively trapping users in a new annual plan before they can cancel. Because NordVPN backdates its "30-day money-back guarantee" to the date of the charge, the guarantee is, in practice, far less than 30 days.
"This case is about fairness and transparency from a company that claims to safeguard both," said Burkett McInturff of Wittels McInturff Palikovic. "NordVPN markets itself as a trusted privacy company, yet it takes advantage of trusting customers—quietly hiking prices, charging early, and misrepresenting its refund policy. We're going to hold them accountable." Scott Harris of Bryson Harris Suciu & DeMay, PLLC added, "Consumers sign up expecting privacy and flexibility. Instead, NordVPN locks them in with hidden charges and fine print that undercuts its own promises."
The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, and a court order halting NordVPN's allegedly unlawful billing practices. It asserts violations of Chapter 93A, the Massachusetts consumer-protection statute, and common law. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, case number 1:25-cv-13374, and the plaintiffs have requested a jury trial.
