Judge Won’t Dismiss LG, Best Buy TV Labeling Class Action

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 Minnesota federal judge has rejected a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit that alleges certain LG televisions did not have the advertised 120Hz refresh rate.

U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim found that the consumer fraud claims brought by plaintiffs Benjamin and Breann Hudock could survive a motion by LG and Best Buy to dismiss the TV labeling class action lawsuit because they demonstrated that there was a way to prove that they had suffered an ascertainable loss due to the allegedly mislabeled LG TV.

The Hudocks say they purchased LG televisions that purported to have a 120Hz refresh rate, but which they allege actually have a 60Hz refresh rate. They filed the class action lawsuit against LG Electronics USA Inc., Best Buy Co. Inc., Best Buy Stores LP, and BestBuy.com LLC.

The LG TV class action lawsuit asserts violations of Minnesota and New Jersey consumer fraud statutes and common law claims.

LG and Best Buy previously sought to have the misleading TV labeling class action dismissed. On March 27, 2017, the court dismissed the Hudocks’ claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, but allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended LG class action lawsuit.

LG seeks to dismiss the Hudocks’ amended class action lawsuit, which also includes the newly-added plaintiff Gerald DeLoss.

According to the LG class action lawsuit, the Hudocks allege they paid $499.99 for their LG television and DeLoss says he paid $699.99 for his LG television.

The plaintiffs allege that “higher refresh rates are directly, demonstrably and mathematically linked to higher prices” and that “televisions with higher refresh rates have more objective value and command a price premium.”

They say that LG and Best Buy possess the relevant Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) information with which an expert can use to analyze the extent of the putative Class Members’ losses. The plaintiffs estimate their losses to be approximately 15 to 20 percent of their purchase price and they claim that they “will be able to provide a detailed quantification of damages both for the class and for themselves during the appropriate stage of litigation.”

In Monday’s order denying the motion to dismiss the LG television class action lawsuit, Judge Tunheim found that the plaintiffs sufficiently showed how they could use expert to analyze consumer preferences and sales data to determine how the extent of the losses consumers may have suffered when purchasing the allegedly mislabeled LG television.

The judge also found that DeLoss provided sufficient detail in his allegations, including how much he paid for an LG TV that purportedly had a 120Hz refresh rate but which instead had only a 60Hz refresh rate, and that he sufficiently argued that he would not have purchased the LG TV, or would have paid less for it, if he had known that it did not have the advertised 120Hz refresh rate.

The plaintiffs are represented by David M. Cialkowski and Alyssa J. Leary of Zimmerman Reed LLP, Daniel C. Hedlund and Joseph C. Bourne of Gustafson Glueck PLLC and Luke P. Hudock of Hudock Law Group SC.

The Best Buy, LG Misleading TV Class Action Lawsuit is Hudock, et al. v. LG Electronics USA Inc., et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-01220, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.