estimated retail value claim isn’t puffery

Kabbash v. Jewelry Channel, Inc. USA, 2015 WL 6690236 (C.D.
Cal. Nov. 2, 2015)
 
Holding of most general interest: “Estimated retail value”
statements and statements of discount or savings amounts at check-out where the
discount calculations were based on that estimated retail value were not
puffery, because they were specific and quantifiable.  The phrase “estimated retail value” “can
reasonably be read to imply that the figure is at least measurably based on a
list retail price that is presumed to be suggested by the manufacturer and
capable of verification,” reinforced by a checkout notice such as, “You saved
$130.00 today!” with the dollar figure in bold type.”  Defendant argued that the estimated retail
value was merely an opinion—an estimate (opinion) of value (also opinion).  That ignored the meaning of “retail” in the
phrase—individually, those terms could be puffery, but “estimated retail value”
“is anchored in fact by a quantifiable retail price.”  The FTC and securities cases have also agreed
that misrepresentations of costs can be misleading and are too specific to be
puffery.
 
The court also, contrary to a number of district courts in
the Ninth Circuit, found that the named plaintiffs could seek injunctive relief
on behalf of a class, given the purpose of California’s consumer protection
laws.  “Because some members of the class
do not have the same knowledge as Plaintiffs now do, there is a likelihood of
repeat injury for the class as a whole, and on the basis of ‘class standing,’
the claims may proceed.”

from Blogger http://ift.tt/1NRP8wi

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s