Discounts at Burlington Coat Factory
October 2016: After plaintiffs attempted to address concerns raised in the June 2016 court order, a federal judge denied preliminary approval again, finding, among other things, that the $7.50 Merchandise Certificates do not provide “real value” to class members. The parties have 60 days to file another motion for preliminary approval of a settlement that does not include Merchandise Certificates similar to ones in the earlier agreement. Click here to read the court’s decision and learn more.
June 2016: A federal judge refused to preliminarily approve the proposed settlement because the Court was concerned about the notice to class members and the fairness of the proposed settlement. Specifically, the Court questioned why each class member will receive $7.50 regardless of the nature of his/her allegations and why it is fair to require class members to redeem certificates by purchasing more merchandise from Burlington. As for the notice to class members, the Court questioned the adequacy of method used to distribute the notice, as well as the content of the notice. Plaintiffs have 60 days to file a renewed motion for preliminary approval addressing the issues in the court order.
May 2016: Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a settlement of this action. According to the proposed settlement terms, Burlington Coat Factory will make up to $27,750,000 in Merchandise Certificates available for the class members. Each class member will receive one Merchandise Certificate worth $7.50. In addition, the store agreed to provide disclosures regarding its “Compare” prices and similar pricing practices, as well as additional training for employees and periodic audits of its pricing practices.
July 2015: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Burlington Coat Factory for allegedly falsely advertising discounts. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the store’s price tags misleadingly compare its price to a higher price in order to make consumers believe that Burlington’s prices are significantly lower. (Horosny et al v. Burlington Coat Factory of California, LLC and Does 1-100, Case No. 15-cv-5005, C. D. CA.)
For more information about the misleading advertising of discounts and TINA.org’s coverage of the issue, click here.