Customers free to sue department stores for fake sales that make shoppers think they're getting a bargain after judge backs suit against Kohl's

By Daily Mail Reporter

PUBLISHED: 00:56 EST, 22 May 2013 | UPDATED: 01:08 EST, 22 May 2013


Stores cannot be sued if they hide the fact that an item isn't actually discounted as much as they have advertised.

The new ruling came in California where a judge overturned a class action suit against Kohl's department store.

Now, if consumers find out that they paid more than the advertised discount price on something that they thought was on sale, they can sue the retailer for a sizable payout.

Targeting customers: A California judge ruled that Kohl's cannot show false 'original' prices in hopes of getting customers to think that they are receiving a better deal on the item

Targeting customers: A California judge ruled that Kohl's cannot show false 'original' prices in hopes of getting customers to think that they are receiving a better deal on the item

The Los Angeles Times reported the change, which only applies in California at the moment.

The issue stems from the legal complaint made by Antonio S. Hinjonos, who argued that he would not have purchased as many items from Kohl's if he knew that there was not as significant of a discount as advertised.

According to the paper, he bought Samonsite luggage because he thought that it was 50 per cent off it's original $299.99 pricetag and he thought he was getting a 39 per cent markdown on polo shirts from the higher price of $36-per-shirt.

 

More...

In both cases, those original prices were determined not to be the case, so the discount was not a fair reflection given the true full market value.

Courthouse News Service cites the court filings where Mr Hinjonos said he 'would not have purchased (these) products at Kohl's in the absence of Kohl's misrepresentations.'

Victims: The case came up because one California man (not pictured) argued that he would not have bought certain items if he thought that he was not getting as much of a deal as was advertised

Victims: The case came up because one California man (not pictured) argued that he would not have bought certain items if he thought that he was not getting as much of a deal as was advertised

Rights: The judge ruled that customers should expect to be given the full information before their purchase

Rights: The judge ruled that customers should expect to be given the full information before their purchase

'Price advertisements matter,' presiding judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the finding made by himself and two other judges.

'When a consumer purchases merchandise on the basis of false price information, and when the consumer alleges that he would not have made the purchase but for the misrepresentation, he has standing to sue.'

'Here, Hinojos specifically and plausibly alleges that Kohl's falsely markets its products at reduced prices precisely because consumers such as himself reasonably regard price reductions as material information when making purchasing decisions,' the judge wrote.

Originally the case was dismissed but that ruling was overturned by the 9th Circuit on Tuesday.

Add your comments

Comments (94)

The comments below have not been moderated.

 View all

9th Circuit Court of Appeals made the ruling........................that says it all.

Click to rate     Rating   (0)

Report abuse

Ok, I think people are misunderstanding the ruling in this case. What he is sueing for is not the fact that he paid $299 for the luggage. The store claimed the luggage was 50% off. This is just an example so it might be different but what he is sueing for is saying that this was false advertisment. In reality the luggage retails for only $400, therefore he did not purchase it at 50% off. He is saying that if he had known that he was not receiving such a great dealt hen he wouldnt have purchased it. I think he has complete standing to sue. I'm tired of stores claiming something is x amount off and reality its only $4 off the real price.

Click to rate     Rating   (0)

Report abuse

my interpretations of this is the the list price they were advertising as being discounted is false & they could be advertising it at its actual price but displaying it as a discount.

Click to rate     Rating   (0)

Report abuse

This is incredible to me. I shop at Kohl's. When I leave Kohl's, I feel as though I have robbed the place. I always wonder how they make money, they sell good quality for an excellent price. I love everything I have ever purchased there over the years. If you do not like the price or the sales, shop some where else. This is still a semi-free country, not for long but right now we remain semi-free.

Click to rate     Rating   3

Report abuse

What an idiot. More severe laws should be created to punish the people who file this frivolous garbage.

Click to rate     Rating   4

Report abuse

There is such a thing as truth in advertising. There a laws to protect the elderly against unscrupulous hucksters who take advantage of their gullibility, for example claiming cheap prices and then taking them for a ride for all the extras. If a store is taking advantage of consumers' gullibility through some shady marketing scheme, then why is it OK for them to do so? Value is measured by quality and price. In a competitive environment, you will always get a good value, that being a quality product at a reasonable price. The problem is that the chain stores are all mostly owned by wall street and private equity hucksters where competition is really non existent and since taking over, they have turned these stores into outlet malls for cheap, shoddy products from COMMUNIST China. Not only are the product garbage, they are overpriced, in essence, a bad value for your money. So they have to resort to questionable marketing schemes to lure you into buying that garbage.

Click to rate     Rating   1

Report abuse

Caveat Emptor.... Do some research. Protecting laziness legally is just stupid...

Click to rate     Rating   2

Report abuse

"he would not have purchased as many items from Kohl's if he knew that there was not as significant of a discount as advertised" YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING! At the register, one has the option of saying, No I am NOT paying that, and walking out. Did this dolt not see what the register was showing him. His money was not taken at gunpoint. HE CHOSE to pay. That satisfies the contract. The Judge should be fired for misrepresenting law and common sense.

Click to rate     Rating   10

Report abuse

I don't shop at Kohl's anyway.

Click to rate     Rating   1

Report abuse

Kohl's advertised 50% off the MSRP of $299. That is what he received. It is not deceptive. If he did not like the deal then return it. So now if something is on closeout, what happens then? Is it 80% off the original price tag? or 80% off the first sale price, second sale price? Total insanity. Only in California.

Click to rate     Rating   18

Report abuse

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

Add your comment

You have 1000 characters left.
Libellous and abusive comments are not allowed. Please read our House Rules.
For information about privacy and cookies please read our Privacy Policy.
Terms