Sharp Hopes to Dismiss LED TV False Ad Class Action Lawsuit

A motion to dismiss a proposed LED false advertising class action lawsuit was submitted to New Jersey federal court by Sharp Electronics Corporation, claiming that the class action lawsuit should be dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to properly allege their false advertising claims.

Sharp disagrees with plaintiffs’ accusation that the company purposefully misled customers through falsely advertising their LCD TVs as LED TVs. In the motion to dismiss the false advertising class action lawsuit, Sharp argues that “no reasonable consumer could plausibly be misled by the accurate label ‘LED TV’ and Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed.” The company maintains that the LED TV label for their TV products accurately refers to the LED technology used in the Sharp televisions in question. This same technology is what distinguishes these Sharp TVs from the less advanced LCD TVs, according to Sharp.

The electronics manufacturer also argues that the proposed nationwide Class claims should be dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiffs “seek to represent a nationwide Class under New Jersey law, but each of the named Plaintiffs purchased his television(s) outside New Jersey.” Sharp claims that according to consumer laws, a nationwide Class cannot be certified under a law from a single state.

The Sharp LED false advertising class action lawsuit was filed in in October 2014 by plaintiffs Jason Popejoy, Joe Sawyer, and Daniel Sullivan, alleging that Sharp falsely advertised their brand name LCD (liquid crystal display) TVs as LED (light emitting diodes) TVs . Sharp filed the objection and motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims on Jan. 12.

According to the Sharp class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege:

“Sharp’s failure to disclose that its references to LED refer to the light source that illuminates the LCD panel, instead of the display technology itself, and its nondisclosure and concealment that each of the televisions is otherwise functionally identical to televisions that are advertised and sold as ‘LCD TVs,’ were at all times knowing, intentional, and intended to mislead consumers.”

The Sharp LED class action lawsuit further alleges that Sharp used false advertising methods to convince consumers to buy Sharp’s “so-called LED TVs” under the false belief that they were upgrading from their LCD TVs, in addition to charging customers a premium for such TV products that the plaintiffs and other Class Members would not have paid had the LCD TVs been accurately labeled.

Finally, the LED false advertising class action lawsuit claims that Sharp also benefited from this LED TV false advertising by essentially stealing sales from other brand-name television manufacturers by inaccurately labeling their LED TV products.

Popejoy and the other named plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and a Class of:

“All persons who purchased, for personal use and not re-sale, within the United States within the four years (or other applicable statute of limitations period) preceding the filing of this Complaint up through any trial of this matter, a Sharp-brand LED-lit LCD television that is sold in a box that describes the television as an LED TV or LED HDTV or LED television.”

In this Sharp LED false advertising class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking several forms of relief, including an injunction prohibiting Sharp from continuing to allegedly advertise their LCD TVs and LED TVs, an order requiring sharp to re-label their products as well as engage in corrective advertising, restitution for the plaintiffs and consumers, as well as the certification of the proposed nationwide Class.

The Sharp LED False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Popejoy, et al. v. Sharp Electronics Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-06426-WJM-MF, in the U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey.