Discounts at T.J. Maxx
December 2017: A federal judge granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.
October 2017: A federal judge denied preliminary approval of the settlement because the proposed format for the notice distributed to the class members did not display the stores’ logos.
September 2017: Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a settlement of this case. According to the proposed settlement agreement, class members will receive a pro rata share of the settlement fund in the form of merchandise credits after other expenses – including notice and administration costs, attorneys’ fees, and class representative payments – are paid. In addition, the company agreed to amend the disclosures and definition of “Compare At” pricing on websites and in-store signage, place more signs with additional disclosures, and that its compliance program will periodically monitor, train, and audit its stores to ensure they comply with state and federal price comparison laws. In addition, the stores agreed to comply with the law regarding comparison pricing practices.
July 2017: The parties notified the Court that they reached a settlement agreement and plan on filing a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement within 30 days.
September 2015: A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (which consolidates this lawsuit with two others: Berkoff v. Marshalls and Metoyer v. HomeGoods) making similar allegations was filed. The complaint alleges that TJX Companies retailers – including TJ Maxx, Marshalls, and HomeGoods – make consumers believe that prices of products are significantly discounted by comparing its prices to false higher prices. (In Re The TJX Companies, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1437, C. D. CA.)
July 2015: A class-action lawsuit was filed against T.J. Maxx stores for allegedly deceptively advertising discounts to make consumers believe they are saving a specific dollar amount by comparing sale prices to false higher prices. (Chester and Friedman et al v. The TJX Companies, Inc. T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC, and Does 1-100, Case No. 15-cv-1437, C. D. CA.)
For more information about the deceptive advertising of discounts and TINA.org’s coverage of the issue, click here.