Starbucks, Redbox Class Actions Say Contracts Don’t Comply with NJ Law

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.

Starbucks Corporation and Redbox Automated Retail LLC are both facing class action lawsuits that allege their Terms of Use for automated services do not comply with New Jersey law.

Both consumer class action lawsuits were recently removed to New Jersey federal court.

Plaintiff Alan Brahamsha has lodged virtually identical class action lawsuits against Starbucks and Redbox, asserting that the companies’ Terms of Use contracts violate the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA).

Starbucks and Redbox require consumers to agree to the Terms of Use policy even though the contract does not indicate which provisions are applicable in New Jersey, the class action lawsuits allege.

“Accordingly, Defendant leaves New Jersey residents without meaningful guidance as to their specific rights under its Terms of Use agreement and applicable law,” Brahamsha asserts in both class action lawsuits.

In the Starbucks class action lawsuit, Brahamsha takes issue with the coffee chain’s mobile app that provides consumers with features such as reward points, pre-ordering, free drinks and mobile payment options.

In order to use the Starbucks app, consumers must agree to the Terms of Use.

In the Redbox class action lawsuit, Brahamsha complains about the Terms of Use customers must accept in order to rent or buy entertainment products from a Redbox kiosk.

“Specifically, and in contravention of clearly established law, some of its provisions unreasonably deny redress for certain consumers, even for some knowing and intentional harms,” the Starbucks class action lawsuit states.

The agreements also allegedly contain other provisions that state that some of the terms may not apply to certain consumers, “without specifying which terms actually apply to whom.”

The Redbox class action lawsuit includes the same verbiage about Redbox’s Terms of Use contract. Brahamsha alleges that the companies’ Terms of Use contracts “leave consumers in the dark about their actual rights.”

Brahamsha asserts that the TCCWNA prohibits companies from using boilerplate contract provisions that violate consumers’ rights.

The law also requires companies to make it clear to consumers which provisions apply or don’t apply in certain jurisdictions, according to the consumer contract class action lawsuit.

The class action lawsuits specifically take issue with provisions that absolve the companies of all liability, without making exceptions for negligent, knowing, fraudulent or intentional injuries. These exceptions are required by New Jersey law.

Brahamsha also challenges Starbucks’ provisions that purport to limit consumers to the “sole remedy” of discontinuing use of the application, which the class action lawsuit alleges is a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Brahamsha filed the Starbucks class action lawsuit on behalf of all New Jersey residents who created an account in the Starbucks mobile app and who have purchased goods or service from Starbucks.

He filed the Redbox class action lawsuit on behalf of all New Jersey residents who have rented or purchased an item from a Redbox kiosk.

Brahamsha is represented by Ari H. Marcus of Marcus & Zelman PC and Benjamin H. Richman, Courtney C. Booth and Elizabeth A. Winkowski of Edelson PC.

The Starbucks Class Action Lawsuit is Alan Brahamsha v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-05573, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Redbox Class Action Lawsuit is Alan Brahamsha v. Redbox Automated Retail LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-05637, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.