L.L. Bean Warranty Class Action Lawsuit Gets Thrown Out

An Illinois federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit accusing L.L. Bean Inc. of wrongly changing its lifetime product warranty to a one-year return policy after finding the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the case.

Plaintiff Victor Bondi says he purchased a pair of boots from L.L. Bean in 2017 and made the decision to purchase those boots because of the company’s “century-old warranty” that was touted as a “100% Satisfaction Guarantee.”

In February, L.L. Bean reportedly released a statement informing customers that it would no longer be honoring its old warranty and would instead be replaced by a one year warranty that would require proof of purchase to make a return.

Bondi subsequently filed the L.L. Bean warranty class action lawsuit seeking damages, declaratory relief, and an order that L.L. Bean honor the old warranty and engage in a corrective advertising campaign.

L.L. Bean sought to dismiss the warranty class action lawsuit, arguing that Bondi lacked standing to bring his claims because he never argued that he tried to return any product that he purchased prior to the February warranty policy change. Further, Bondi never alleged that he was dissatisfied with any products he purchased from L.L. Bean, the company said.

Bondi argued that he and other putative Class Members paid for L.L. Bean’s “100% Satisfaction Guarantee,” and that he was deprived of the premium he paid for the boots as soon as L.L. Bean announced that it was rescinding the policy.

U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman found that Bondi did not argue that the boots have a diminished value or that he was dissatisfied with the product in any way. “Therefore, any injury that he may suffer, if at some point he becomes dissatisfied with his boots, is purely speculative, conjectural, and hypothetical, and insufficient to establish Article III standing,” the judge wrote in his order.

Judge Gettleman also disagrees with Bondi’s assertion that L.L. Bean’s statement about its new warranty policy immediately rescinds the terms of the old warranty policy.

“Contrary to plaintiff’s descriptions, the actual language of defendant’s February 9, 2018, statement contains no definite, unequivocal manifestation of an intent to no longer honor the old warranty for items purchased before February 9, 2018,” Judge Gettleman wrote.

“Indeed, a more reasonable interpretation is that defendant has created a new policy for items purchased after February 9, 2018. And, even if it could be interpreted to mean that defendant was applying the ‘new’ policy retroactively, this statement is at most ambiguous on this point.”

This ambiguity does not constitute anticipatory repudiation under Illinois law, the judge said, and therefore Bondi’s claim for breach of contract also fails, as do the claims for deceptive acts and unfair business practices.

“The statement, as written, is neither unfair nor deceptive,” according to Judge Gettleman’s order.

Bondi is represented by Ben Barnow, Erich Schork and Anthony Parkill of Barnow and Associates PC.

The L.L. Bean Warranty Class Action Lawsuit is Victor Bondi v. L.L. Bean Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-01101, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.