Grassology Class Action Says Grass Seeds Fail to Perform as Advertised

A Florida woman says she and thousands of Grassology grass seed purchasers didn’t get the low-maintenance lawn they were promised.

Plaintiff Cheryl Jackson claims that grass seeds sold under the brand Grassology fail to live up to the brand’s marketing promises of an easy-to-maintain lawn.

She seeks to hold two direct marketing companies accountable for these allegedly false representations – New Jersey-based Telebrands Corp. and California-based Moulton Logistics Management. Jackson says Telebrands produces Grassology seeds and, at least until 2016, promoted Grassology in cooperation with Moulton Logistics Management through “infomercials, toll-free numbers and proprietary websites.”

According to this Grassology class action lawsuit, the defendants’ advertisements for Grassology seeds say they produce grass that grows more slowly than ordinary grass, and therefore requires less frequent mowing.

Grassology grass also purportedly requires less watering, fertilizer and weeding. Representations on the defendants’ website claims the Grassology seed blend is “so revolutionary it even has a patent pending by the US Government!”

But Grassology seeds fail to live up to those promises, according to Jackson. She claims that Grassology grass seeds are nothing more than “unspecified, low quality varietals of various grasses unsuited for many climates and terrains.”

Jackson says she ordered Grassology seeds in June 2014, paying $32.97 plus shipping and handling for two one-pound bags of seeds. After she spread these Grassology seeds over bare spots and elsewhere on her lawn, she says, the seeds failed to grow after several weeks.

Jackson called the defendants about the problem, and they allegedly assured her the seeds needed more time to grow. In reliance on that assurance, Jackson bought another batch of Grassology seeds. Still, she says, the Grassology seeds she bought never germinated.

Were it not for the allegedly false and misleading advertising linked to Grassology seeds, Jackson says, she either would not have purchased them or would have requested a refund immediately after purchasing them.

Jackson says she’s not the only dissatisfied Grassology customer. She claims to have found many negative reviews and customer complaints in various online forums from customers who didn’t get the results they were led to expect from Grassology seeds.

She quotes reviews from Amazon panning Grassology seeds, some claiming the seeds failed to grow at all. One reviewer reports being offered only a 20 percent refund after complaining to the defendants. When the reviewer then asked about the supposed 100 percent satisfaction guarantee, he was allegedly told he would have to return the seeds – after he had already planted them in his lawn.

Jackson proposes to represent a plaintiff Class that would include all persons in the U.S. who purchased Grassology grass seeds. She also proposes an alternative subclass to cover Class Members who live in her home state of Florida.

She seeks an award of damages, injunctive relief, court costs and attorneys’ fees.

Jackson is represented by attorneys David C. Wright and Joseph G. Sauder of McCune Wright Arevalo LLP and by Bryan L. Clobes and Daniel O. Herrera of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP.

The Grassology Grass Seeds Class Action Lawsuit is Cheryl Jackson v. Telebrands Corp. and Moulton Logistics Management, Case No. 2:17-cv-04107, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.