Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s Class Action Alleges Deceptive Pricing

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.

Just a couple of weeks after being hit with a proposed class action lawsuit over its allegedly fraudulent business practices, Macy’s and Bloomingdales are facing another lawsuit with similar allegations.

Plaintiffs Job Carder and Erica Vinci filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Macy’s, and its divisions Macy’s West and Bloomingdale’s, alleging that the department stores engage in so-called “fake sales.”

The plaintiffs claim that the companies “represented on price tags of their products… Prices that were artificially inflated and arbitrary and did not represent a bona fide price at which they previously sold such products or the prevailing market price for such items.”

The lawsuit went on to say, “Defendants then offered, on the same sales labels or tags or on signs above the merchandise, to sell the items for a reduced or discounted price, which supposedly represented a significant discount off of the false original, regular or compare at price.”

Carder and Vinci claim that the original prices listed for the products were two or more times the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP), then the stores offered a 50 percent discount or more off of the price and tried to pass it off as a substantial sale, when it was in fact the original MSRP.

The Federal Trade Commission has specifically spoken out against deceptive pricing practices such as those employed by Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s, the class action lawsuit claims.

The plaintiffs quote the FTC guidelines as stating, “It bears repeating that the manufacturer, distributor or retailer must in every case act honestly and in good faith in advertising a list price, and not with the intention of establishing a basis, or creating an instrumentality, for a deceptive comparison in any local or other trade area.”

Carder and Vinci state in their claim that they would not have made such purchases had they known about the allegedly false representations made by the companies to offer their items as deceptively on sale.

“Through their false and deceptive marketing, advertising and pricing scheme, Defendants violated and continue to violate laws prohibiting advertising goods for sale as discounted from former prices which are false, and prohibiting misleading statements about the existence and amount of price reductions,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a Class of California consumers who purchased items from Macy’s, Macy’s West or Bloomingdale’s “where the price paid was at a sale or discount to the original, regular or compare at price listed on the tag for that item and such individuals have not received a refund or credit for such purchases.”

The proposed class action lawsuit brings forth five counts against the Defendants including unfair business practices, fraudulent business practices, unlawful business practices, false advertising and violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

In addition to seeking class certification, the plaintiffs are also asking for restitution including disgorgement of profits and an order enjoining the defendants from continuing their alleged violations of the law.

Last month, Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s were hit with another proposed class action lawsuit in the same federal court with similar allegations that the companies engaged in advertising “fake sales.”

The older lawsuit alleged violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, fraudulent business practices, unlawful business practices and violation of the California False Advertising Law.

Carder and Vinci are represented by Michael C. Martinez and Mark Charles of Martinez Charles LLP.

The Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Job Carder, et al. v. Macy’s West Stores Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-03341, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.