Walmart Class Action Says ‘Rollback’ Pricing Deceives Shoppers

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A California woman is challenging Walmart’s “Rollback” sale pricing, claiming it uses false original prices to deceive shoppers.

The retail giant’s sale pricing advertised as a “Rollback” discount is in many cases false and deceptive because it’s based on purported original prices that are completely fictional, according to the Walmart class action lawsuit.

Plaintiff Brenna Ceja claims Walmart uses this alleged fake sale pricing to increase profits. In her complaint, Ceja includes photographs of Walmart “Rollback” price tags as they appear in retail stores.

In some of these photos, the Walmart “Rollback” price appears to be the same price as the one on the item’s original price tag. Yet some of these Walmart “Rollback” price tags advertise a former price, or “was” price, that’s obviously higher than the “sale” price.

Not all items marked with Walmart “Rollback” price tags show the original price, according to Ceja. Items so marked are lacking a clear statement of the product’s original price, she says, and consumers at large do not have the expertise to determine the product’s value themselves.

She argues that for these items, shoppers should be able to rely on the posted “Rollback” price tag to determine what the item is worth. But a customer who relies on the “was” prices on Walmart “Rollback” tags would be deceived as to the item’s true original price, Ceja claims.

The plaintiff argues Walmart’s “Rollback” pricing deceives consumers into thinking they’re getting a bargain that doesn’t actually exist. By creating a false impression of a discount, Walmart is inducing customers to make purchases they would not make otherwise, she claims.

Ceja cites California law that specifically restricts the type of fake sale pricing she is accusing Walmart of. A state statute requires that to advertise a price as a “former price,” that price must have been the prevailing market price for the item advertised within the three months preceding the advertisement. Otherwise, the advertisement must state the date on which the former price was the prevailing price.

The Walmart class action also cites Federal Trade Commission guidance describing circumstances that make sale pricing deceptive. According to that guidance, sale pricing based on a fictitious original price creates an impression of a false bargain. In that case, “the purchaser is not receiving the unusual value he expects.”

Ceja seeks to represent a sizable plaintiff Class that would consist of all persons in the U.S. who from April 20, 2013 through the date of final judgment, purchased merchandise advertised with a Walmart “Rollback” price based on an advertised “was” price that did not match the actual former price for that item.

She is asking for a court order requiring Walmart to stop its “Rollback” pricing and to conduct a corrective advertising campaign. She is also asking for an award of damages, restitution and disgorgement, and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs of this litigation.

Ceja is represented by attorneys Kiley L. Grombacher and Marcus J. Bradley of Bradley/Grombacher LLP.

The Walmart “Rollback” Fake Sale Class Action Lawsuit is Brenna Ceja v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Case No. 2:17-at-00427, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.