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 websites.
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 store websites.
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 prejudice.
Finally, because 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.”