Sierra Trading Post Class Action Says ‘Compare At’ Prices are Misleading

A recent class action lawsuit alleges that Sierra Trading Post implements false “compare at” retail prices to trick consumers into believing they are getting a deal.

Plaintiff Weimin Chen says he filed his class action against Sierra Trading Post after a long history of purchases with the company.

Between December 2010 and January 2018, Chen allegedly placed 34 orders for 90 separate items.

The items were reportedly advertised by Sierra Trading Post to be discounted 60 percent from their original retail prices. So, although Chen spent $3,314.46, he was led to believe his total advertised savings was $4,722.32.

However, Chen claims that Sierra Trading Post implements fake comparable retail prices in order to make their products seem more attractive to consumers.

“Mr. Chen reasonably believed and understood that the advertised higher reference price, i.e., the ‘compare at $xx’ price, and the advertised dollar and percentage savings from that reference price, represented the price at which that specific item (and not a different or supposedly similarly styled item) was currently or in the recent past offered by representative retail stores in the local marketplace or by Sierra Trading Post itself,” the Sierra Trading Post class action lawsuit states.

The items advertised with “compare at” prices were allegedly never offered by any retailer at that price, and for some items the reference prices were “estimates or simply made up.”

The Sierra Trading Post fake sale class action claims that Chen and other consumers were tricked into paying more and buying more than they would have had they known that the comparable retail prices were not actually representative of market value.

“When a reference price is bona fide and truthful, it may help consumers in making informed purchasing decisions,” the Sierra Trading Post class action explains. “In contrast, consumers are harmed when merchants advertise their products with inflated and false reference prices, because the false reference prices deceive consumers, deprive consumers of a fair opportunity to accurately evaluate the offer, and result in purchasing decisions based on false pretenses.”

Fake retail pricing schemes do not do damage only to deceived consumers. According to the Sierra Trading Post class action, these tactics can cause harm to other competitor stores. By posting false reference prices, companies allegedly injure other competitors that sell the same or similar products.

Chen argues that this behavior is prohibited under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act due to the harm false reference pricing can inflict on consumers and competitors. Chen brings claims under this law in addition to claims of breach of express warranty.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a Class of Washington consumers who purchased one or more products from Sierra Trading Post which the store advertised or promoted by displaying a reference price or discount.

The Sierra Trading Post sale class action lawsuit seeks damages of around $23 million, additional damages, disgorgement, restitution, nominal damages, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Chen and the proposed Class are represented by Daniel M. Hattis of Hattis & Lukacs.

The Sierra Trading Post Fake Sale Class Action Lawsuit is Chen v. Sierra Trading Post Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01581, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.