LensProToGo Class Action Says ‘Free’ Shipping is Misleading

A recent class action lawsuit says that LensProToGo consumers were misled by representations that they would get free shipping.

LensProToGo is an online store which offers rentals for cameras, lenses, and other related gear. Unfortunately, according to plaintiff Carlos Borges’ recent class action, he and other customers were misled by statements that “FREE SHIPPING is always included in our prices!” prominently featured on the LensProToGo website.

Instead of shipping being free, LensProToGo allegedly charges more for rentals when consumers ask to have the items shipped. In contrast, when consumers choose to pick up their rentals, they are allegedly charged a lower price. Although the price change isn’t called “shipping,” Borges argues that it serves the same purpose by increasing the price of rentals.

“Plaintiff and members of the Classes have been injured because, by paying higher prices for equipment that was shipped, they were actually paying for shipping the equipment despite the Defendant’s repeated representation of ‘FREE SHIPPING,’” the LensProToGo free shipping class action lawsuit contends.

Borges says that he rented a Canon camera in September 2019 and was forced to pay a higher price to have his order shipped. To rent a Canon XF405 camera, it would reportedly be $213 if he chose to ship the item. However, if he were to pick it up, the rental cost would have been only $173.

Because of his situation and location, Borges was allegedly forced to pay $40 more to have his rental shipped.

“In other words, the Defendant in fact was charging the Plaintiff $40.00 for the camera to be shipped to his home, despite Defendant’s repeated promises and representations that shipping was ‘FREE,’” the LensProToGo class action lawsuit argues.

To make matters worse, the camera Borges wanted to rent was not even available. Instead, he was provided with a different camera model, the Canon XA45. For this camera, the rental price was $143.

Like the previously selected camera, he was allegedly charged more to have the product shipped than he would have been had he picked it up. The same camera was reportedly rentable for $120 – including all additional charges other than the rental cost – should the renter decide to pick up the camera.

As a result of LensProToGo’s practices, Borges argues that he was unlawfully charged $35 for shipping despite the company’s representations that they always provided free shipping.

“This demonstrates that shipping was not in fact ‘FREE’ as Defendant prominently and repeatedly claimed on its website,” Borges argues in his LensProToGo class action lawsuit.

“Rather, Defendant had included the cost of shipping within the higher price of the rental itself while still telling customers that shipping was ‘FREE.’”

Borges argues that he and other consumers were misled by LensProToGo’s free shipping representations. Had the company been honest about their shipping costs, Borges and other consumers would have allegedly not rented from the website or wouldn’t have tolerated paying a higher price.

The plaintiff says that he was initially deceived by LensProToGo’s representations. Although he later uncovered the truth behind the “free shipping” statements, Borges states that he was forced to rent the camera because he needed the equipment soon and wanted it to be shipped to him.

According to the LensProToGo free shipping class action lawsuit, the misrepresentations from the equipment rental company violated both federal and Massachusetts consumer protection laws. These laws reportedly prohibit unfair, deceptive, false, and misleading representations. Borges argues that the “free shipping” representation on LensProToGo’s website is covered by these laws and is therefore unlawful.

Although LensProToGo has since stopped advertising their services with the “free shipping” statement, Borges contends that he and other customers still suffered from financial injury as a result of the company’s conduct. As such, the LensProToGo free shipping class action lawsuit seeks actual damages, statutory damages, tremble damages, interest, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Borges seeks to represent a Class of consumers who rented equipment from LensProToGo since Aug. 18, 2016 and selected the shipping delivery option. He also seeks to represent a subclass of the same consumers from Massachusetts. The end of each “Class period” is the date – unknown to Borges – when LensProToGo stopped advertising their free shipping offer.

Did you rely on representations that you would get free shipping from LensProToGo? Share your experiences in the comment section below.

Borges and the proposed Class are represented by Edward F. Haber, Michelle H. Blauner, and Adam M. Stewart of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP.

The LensProToGo Free Shipping Class Action Lawsuit is Carlos Borges v. The Dude Abides LLC d/b/a LensProToGo, Case No. 3:20-cv-30132, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

BMW Coolant Pump Class Action Settlement Should Be Approved, Drivers Say

Why Do Car Dealerships Use Ringless Voicemail?

Dietz and Watson Cheese Class Action Says Gouda Isn’t ‘Smoked’

Does Zantac Cause Cancer?