Quantcast

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Thursday, April 25, 2024

J. Crew Group alleged to falsely advertise prices at Factory stores

Lawsuits
General court 01

shutterstock.com

LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) – A consumer alleges that J. Crew Group deceives customers with the pricing of J. Crew Factory clothing and merchandise.

Christina Coffey filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated on June 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against J. Crew Group Inc., Chinos Holdings Inc. and Does 1-50 citing the California False Advertising Law, negligent misrepresentation and other counts.

"During the statute of limitations period, and continuing to this day, defendants have deceived consumers throughout California and the United States by offering perpetual sales on all of their clothing and merchandise sold at J. Crew Factory stores and the J. Crew Factory website. Quite literally, these sales are perpetual because they never end. And because the clothing and merchandise is perpetually on sale, the so-called sale price is actually the price at which defendants regularly offer for sale, and sell, their clothing and merchandise," according to the complaint.

The suit states the defendants advertise false former price comparisons at J. Crew Factory stores and that the items were never sold at that price.

The plaintiffs hold J. Crew Group Inc., Chinos Holdings Inc. and Does 1-50 responsible because the defendants allegedly falsely represented the nature and existence of price discounts by offering false sales and former price comparisons.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against defendants; certify class action; declaratory and injunctive relief; restitution; award of all economic, monetary, actual, consequential and compensatory damages; interest, and further relief as the court may deem just. She is represented by Aubry Wand of The Wand Law Firm PC in Culver City, California and Benjamin Heikali and Joshua Nassir of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case number 6:18-cv-05169

More News