Jos. A. Bank Class Action Says Sale Advertisements Violate N.J. Law

A New Jersey man is challenging sale advertisements by clothing retailer Jos. A. Bank, arguing that they violate consumer protection laws.

Plaintiff Michael Leese claims that certain sale advertisements by defendant Jos. A. Bank Clothiers Inc. are misleading to consumers.

He says that by advertising only the maximum discount available in the sale instead of the full range of available discounts, Jos. A. Bank is in violation of New Jersey’s consumer protection law.

Leese says Jos. A. Bank routinely mails and emails promotions advertising limited-time discounts of “up to” a certain percentage – for example, discounts of “up to 70% off all outerwear.”

Similar offers appear on the company’s website JosABank.com and on displays at Jos. A. Bank retail locations, he says.

Leese claims these advertisements are misleading because only a small number of sale items are actually marked with the advertised discount. He says the “vast majority” of sale merchandise is discounted at rates far below the maximum discount that appears in the promotional materials.

According to Leese, a Jos. A. Bank sale advertised with discounts of “up to 70% off” may actually offer discounts ranging from 30 percent up to 70 percent, with most sale items falling on the lower end of that spectrum. Yet the full range of discounts appears nowhere in the advertisements for the sale, Leese says.

That’s exactly what New Jersey consumer protection laws do not allow, according to this Jos. A. Bank class action lawsuit. Leese quotes New Jersey administrative regulations that require advertisers of discounted merchandise to “state the minimum percentage reduction as conspicuously … as the maximum percentage reduction.”

Other regulations also require advertisers to state the basis of the higher comparison price from which the purported discount is taken, using terms like “competitor’s price” or “our regular price.” While the Jos. A. Bank advertisements at issue show the comparison price, they don’t include the required explanatory language, Leese says.

These advertisements can deceive customers into expecting a greater discount than what’s actually offered, Leese claims. He argues that by failing to disclose the smaller discounts in the sale, Jos. A. Bank is actively concealing those discounts.

Leese proposes to represent a plaintiff Class consisting of “[a]ll New Jersey citizens who received a mail or email advertisement from Defendant Jos. A. Bank advertising a discount between February 8, 2011 and the present.” He also proposes a subclass for Class Members who purchased a discounted item during that time period.

He is asking the court for an award of compensatory and punitive damages and for disgorgement of revenues related to the advertising campaign in question. He also seeks reimbursement of his attorneys’ fees and costs of this litigation.

Leese is represented by attorneys Stephen P. DeNittis, Joseph A. Osefchen and Shane T. Prince of DeNittis Osefchen Prince PC and by Ross H. Schmierer of Paris Ackerman & Schmierer LLP.

The Jos. A. Bank Deceptive Sale Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Michael Leese v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers Inc., Case No. L-0437-17, in the Superior Court for Burlington County, New Jersey.