Discounts at Ross Stores
September 2018: A federal judge vacated the August 2017 judgment. Later in September, plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement agreement in which class members may receive a pro rata share of a $4,854,000 settlement fund (after notice and administration costs, attorneys’ fees, and class representative enhancement payments are paid) in the form of a merchandise certificate to use toward purchases at Ross Stores. (Class members can opt to redeem unused certificates for a cash award equal to 75% of the value of the certificate.) The company also agreed to change its price-comparison advertising practices, including changing the language on price tags from “Compare At” to “Comparable Value” and prominently posting additional signs describing its comparison pricing practices in its stores.
August 2017: A federal judge granted the store’s motion for summary judgment finding that plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue claims regarding the use of the phrases “Compare At” and “Comparable Value.” Specifically, the judge concluded that plaintiffs failed to show they suffered economic harm related to the store’s “Compare At” claims, and that the store began using the phrase “Comparable Value” after this case was filed and so plaintiffs did not rely on it when making purchases.
Later in August, the named plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the August 2017 decision. (Jacobo v. Ross Stores, Inc. et al, Case No. 17-56241, 9th Cir.)
June 2016: Although a federal judge dismissed some of the claims in this case without leave to amend, the judge denied part of the motion to dismiss and allowed false advertising allegations to move forward.
June 2015: A class-action lawsuit alleging that Ross Department Stores, Inc. deceptively advertises discounts was filed. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the store’s price tags misleadingly compare the Ross Price to inflated prices in order to make consumers believe that the Ross Price is significantly lower. (Jacobo et al v. Ross Stores, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No. 15-cv-4701, C. D. CA.)
For more information about the misleading advertising of discounts and TINA.org’s coverage of the issue, click here.
When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled.