Zales Class Action Says Jeweler Fails to Honor Repair Service

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A California man says Zales fails to honor the terms of the jewelry repair service customers purchase in conjunction with jewelry from the store.

Lead plaintiff Gordon Lovette alleges in his Zales class action lawsuit that he and other consumers purchased a jewelry repair service thinking that they would be able to get their damaged jewelry repaired or replaced if necessary, as well as inspected on a regular basis.

However, the plaintiff says that when he attempted to use the service, Zales refused to honor its own terms.

“Plaintiff and others similarly situated purchased or attempt to purchase Defendant’s jewelry repair service, and they did so on the basis that Defendant said that of Plaintiff and other similarly situated continued to bring in their jewelry for a semi-annual inspection, it would repair or replace any item if the jewelry becomes damaged,” alleges the Zales class action lawsuit.

Gordon says he purchased a diamond ring, along with the jewelry repair service, from Zale Delaware Inc. doing business as Piercing Pagoda in 2008.

He says that he brought the ring in for inspection every six months as required under the service terms; however, when the diamond became loose in 2018, Zales refused to fix it.

The plaintiff alleges that Zales told him that the jewelry repair service would not fix the loose diamond – they would only do the repair if the diamond fell out.

“Had Plaintiff known that Defendant’s jewelry repair service would not repair his Ring, even though he complied with all the requirements under the terms of the repair agreement, Plaintiff would not have purchased Defendant’s jewelry repair service,” alleges the Zales class action lawsuit.

Gordon says he feels “ripped off and cheated” by Zales in his class action lawsuit.

He thinks that Zales will continue to trick consumers into purchasing its so-called jewelry repair service.

Gordon says that he has suffered emotional distress, wasted time, money, and anxiety as a result of Zales’ alleged failure to honor the terms of its jewelry repair service.

“Defendant represents that its jewelry repair service would repair or replace, jewelry if consumers abided by the terms of the service when this is in fact false. Defendant misrepresented and falsely advertised to Plaintiff and others similarly situated consumers their jewelry repair services,” alleges the Zales jewelry repair class action lawsuit.

The Zales class action lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide Class of consumers who have purchased the jewelry repair service and brought their covered jewelry in for regular inspections but have been refused repairs by the jewelry store.

According to the Zales jewelry class action lawsuit, Zales has engaged in false advertising, unfair business practices, and has violated California consumer protection laws.

The Zales class action lawsuit is seeking a court order requiring Zales to notify consumers about the alleged deceptive advertising and conduct a corrective advertising campaign.

The plaintiff is also seeking restitution and damages on behalf of himself and proposed Class.

The Zales class action was originally filed in California sate court but was removed to federal court on Dec. 3.

Lovette is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Adrian Bacon, Meghan George and Thomas Wheeler of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC.

The Zales Jewelry Repair Services Class Action Lawsuit is Lovette v. Zale Delaware, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-02727-L-RBB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

UPDATE: On June 13, 2019, a California federal judge denied Zales’ attempt to dismiss a class action lawsuit asserting that the company does not honor its own warranty terms.