SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) — On July 7, Laurie Munning filed a
class action lawsuit against Gap and Banana Republic for allegedly deceptively
advertising discounts on Gap Factory and Banana Republic Factory store
The court agreed to some of the charges by Munning and rejected others with and without prejudice.
The suit claims the defendants falsely advertised products by saying consumers get a
specified percentage off a listed “original” price when the items were actually
never sold at the “original” price. Instead, the suit alleges that the
discounted prices are actually the everyday, regular prices.
According to the complaint, Munning alleges that the defendants
use a false and misleading practice of advertising discounted items on their
Gap Factory and Banana Republic Factory websites.
“The Complaint alleges violations of the Federal Guides
Against Deceptive Pricing…and violations of various consumer protection
statutes in 49 states and the District of Columbia, against Defendants arising
out of the sale of merchandise at Defendants’ online Gap Factory store website
and Banana Republic Factory store website,” the order said.
The time frame covered
is from May 24, 2010, to the present, and includes all United States citizens
who purchased any discounted item from online Gap and Banana Republic Factory
Munning requested a trial by jury, seeking pay back of
illegal profits made from the alleged false advertising. In the meantime, Gap
and its affiliates denied Munning’s allegations.
Out of the 11
claims submitted by Munning, the court
dismissed seven with and without prejudice, according to the Oct. 28 order.
In count 1, the
court said Munning could not bring claims under the consumer protection laws of
states other than New Jersey, where she is from, and California, where the case was
filed. This was granted with prejudice.
In count 2, the claims under the
California Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) were also dismissed, as well as
claims under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA), in count 5. These both were
granted without prejudice.
In count 6, the claims under the
New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (NJTCWWNA) were dismissed without prejudice and Munning’s Breach of Contract
Under Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing claim, in count 8, was
dismissed by the court with prejudice.
Also, count 10 was dismissed because the court said Munning failed to provide them with any legal authority to suggest it has a valid claim
for unjust enrichment, thus the defendants’ motion was granted with
Munning had not alleged a personal injury or property damage as a result
of her purchase, and because her negligent misrepresentation claim seeks the
same damages as her breach of contract claim, the defendants’ motion to dismiss
plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claim was also granted with prejudice.
“Plaintiff may amend all claims
dismissed without prejudice no later than Nov. 18, 2016,” the order said. “Failure to file timely amendment will lead to dismissal of such
claims with prejudice.”