September 28th, 2017
September 2017: A federal judge stayed the proceedings in this case pursuant to the parties’ request while they finalize the terms of a settlement agreement. April 2016: A false advertising class-action lawsuit was filed against GNC in April 2016 (and amended in August 2016) for allegedly misleadingly marketing the existence, nature, and amount of discounts
October 11th, 2019
September 2019: A federal judge granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. A final fairness hearing is scheduled for December 19, 2019. For more information, go to https://www.onlinepricesettlement.com/. August 2019: Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement agreement that would provide all class members with a coupon for $30 off of a purchase
July 11th, 2019
In July 2019, a class-action lawsuit was filed against The Gap and Old Navy for allegedly misleadingly advertising sales by comparing discounted prices to false former prices. (Hennessey et al v. The Gap, Inc. and Old Navy, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-1867, E. D. MO.)
November 20th, 2018
October 2018: A federal judge granted final approval of the settlement agreement. April 2018: Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement agreement. According to its terms, class members may receive a share of a $1,625,000 net settlement fund, the exact amount depending on a number of factors, including the amount spent on purchases
June 21st, 2018
In June 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed against J. Crew for allegedly deceptively advertising sale prices for merchandise sold at its Factory stores. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the store compares a sale price to a false former price when, according to the complaint, the merchandise was never sold for the represented former price. Plaintiffs
June 14th, 2018
May 2018: The same named plaintiff filed a lawsuit making similar allegations in a California state court. (Press v. J. Crew Group Inc., Case No. 2018-512503, California State Court – Ventura County) September 2017: This federal court case was voluntarily dismissed , the reasons for which have not been disclosed. June 2017: A false advertising
September 13th, 2017
August 2017: A federal judge granted final approval of the settlement. May 2017: A federal judge preliminarily approved a settlement of this action. According to the terms, class members may receive a $10 voucher to use for purchases on art.com, allposters.com, and posters.com. In addition, the company agreed to advertise regular prices that are the
July 19th, 2017
In May 2017, a class-action lawsuit was filed against The Talbots, Inc. for allegedly deceptively advertising sales and products at outlet stores. According to the complaint, the stores misleadingly compare discounted prices to artificially inflated “regular” prices to induce consumers to make purchases. In addition, the complaint alleges that products sold at outlet stores are
June 16th, 2017
In June 2017, a class-action lawsuit was filed against J. Crew for allegedly misleadingly advertising sales on its Factory website and in its Factory retail stores by comparing discount prices to “valued at” prices when, according to the plaintiffs, items are never sold at “valued at” prices. In addition, plaintiffs claim that the store does
May 12th, 2017
In February 2017, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Nordstrom for allegedly deceptively advertising sales and prices of merchandise. Among other things, plaintiffs allege that the store misleadingly represents that prices are reduced by “more than” or “up to” certain percentages when they are not discounted by the represented amount. To learn more about all
December 12th, 2016
September 2016: This action was consolidated to be heard with three other similar lawsuits. For more information about the other cases, click on the information below. Benson v. Macy’s, Inc. et al Farhang v. Macy’s Inc. et al Haley v. Macy’s Inc. et al This action was administratively closed because Haley was named the lead
December 8th, 2016
Lawsuits claim original prices to which sale prices are compared have no basis in reality.
November 16th, 2016
October 2016: A federal judge granted the named plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this action . July 2016: The named plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss his claims . After the store showed that the plaintiff never bought the products at issue and created “fraudulent bank statements to support his perjurious testimony,” the store opposed the
November 1st, 2016
September 2016: This action was consolidated with three other lawsuits to be heard together. For more information about the other cases, click on the case information below. Carder et al v. Macy’s, Inc. et al Farhang v. Macy’s Inc. et al Haley et al v. Macy’s, Inc. et al This case was administratively closed because
July 14th, 2016
Shoppers face fictitious pricing, perpetual sales and more when trying to decipher a true bargain in the aisle.
January 4th, 2016
In December 2015, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Saks for allegedly misleadingly advertising discounts of merchandise. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the store compares “sale” prices to false “market” prices when, according to plaintiffs, the “market” prices were “artificially inflated,” were never the original prices for the merchandise, and were not the prevailing market
August 20th, 2014
In August 2014, an appellate court affirmed a federal district court’s decision to dismiss a false advertising lawsuit against Jos. A. Bank. According to the complaint, Jos. A. Bank deceptively advertises normal retail prices as temporary price reductions. The appellate court found that, among other things, the named-plaintiff failed to allege facts showing he suffered
November 16th, 2016
October 2016: A Consolidated Class Action Complaint making similar allegations (i.e., the store misleadingly offers discounts off of false “original” prices) was filed. September 2016: This action was consolidated with three other similar lawsuits to be heard together. For more information about the cases, click on the case information below. Benson v. Macy’s, Inc., et