Audible's expiring credits covered by Washington's gift certificate law, court rules

Hollis v. Audible, Inc., 2025 WL 2689123, No. 2:24-cv-01999-TL (W.D. Wash. Sept. 19, 2025)

State consumer protection laws sometimes address very specific topics; this case addresses the intersection of one such law with Audible’s membership, which provides customers (including me) with a certain number of credits on a monthly or yearly basis. Audible advertises that these credits are “good for any title in our premium selection, yours to keep forever.” Unused Audible credits expire one year after issue, including credits bought as gifts for other people.

Hollis alleged that this practice is in violation of Washington law, which makes it “unlawful for any person or entity to issue, or to enforce against a bearer, a gift certificate that contains...[a]n expiration date.” Hollis sought to represent a class of all persons within the United States who purchased Audible credits that expired within the applicable statute of limitations.

“In 2004, the Washington State Legislature passed RCW 19.240.020 to ‘prohibit acts and practices of retailers that deprive consumers of the full value of gift certificates, such as expiration dates, service fees, and dormancy or inactivity charges on gift certificates.’ ” The Legislature intended the statute to “be liberally construed to benefit consumers.” The law defines gift certificate to mean “an instrument evidencing a promise by the seller or issuer of the record that consumer gifts or services will be provided to the bearer of the record to the value or credit shown in the record.”

The court found the statute ambiguous in relevant part. Given the consumer-protective aim of the legislature, the court interpreted “gift certificate” broadly. Interpreting the term “value or credit shown in the record” as meaning “a stored value or credit worth a specified amount” of “money, services, or goods” or the balance credited to a person’s account, respectively. “Or credit” could not be rendered superfluous. Audible argues that “[t]he word “value” refers to vouchers that show a cash value that was purchased (e.g., a $10 Starbucks gift card), while the word “credit” captures store credits (e.g., a receipt showing a $25 credit after a product return).” “But there is no meaningful distinction between these examples, which both show a redeemable cash value: $10 and $25, respectively.”

This wasn’t an unlimited reading: “For example, a voucher containing a promise to provide ‘car washes’ would not identify a value or credit and would thus be outside the scope of the statute; in contrast, a voucher containing a promise to provide ‘four car washes’ would identify a credit to the voucher user, though not necessarily a monetary value.” Nor would it cover time-limited admissions passes, such as “monthly passes to a parking garage, admission passes to theme parks, physical training packages, music lessons, and bus passes good for a certain number of rides.” Temporally restricted tickets didn’t have “expiration dates”—the nature of the goods/services such as an admission ticket to a theme park, or a monthly bus pas, was that they were provided for a particular duration. A dated “club pass,” “parking code,” or “event ticket” does not contain an “expiration date” if its “value or credit” is for admission to a particular club, parking area, or event on a particular date—neither later nor sooner. Those were merely “dates,” not “expiration dates.”

What about the focus on “gift certificates”? Audible argued that its credits cannot be gifted, and thus cannot fall under the statute’s definition of gift certificates. But the legislative definition of “gift certificate” didn’t require that it had been transferred by a donor. Anyway, the plaintiff alleged that “Audible allows account holders to gift books to anyone...for example, an account holder could use 5 credits to buy books for 5 friends.” So the court denied the motion to dismiss.