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.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
742 thoughts onWalmart Class Action Says ‘Rollback’ Pricing Deceives Shoppers
add me please Walmart case
Please add me
I agree. You going rolling up on the rollback sign to see how much you are saving on the item advertised, and the original price is the same as the rollback price. That is no rollback in my book. Add me!
Add me
Any word on this class action lawsuit?
walmart made me pay $2500 from PayPal account
Please add me
Please add me
It’s about time someone noticed this company’s wrong business practices!
I amlooking for the classaction lawsuit. Against Walmart Debit Card they sent me and a class action against Net Spent first Walmart Sebt card ha no live help on there site and on Goggle over a year last year i lost alot of money and they had a. Ad up pay 40.00 and you can get live help. They owe me over two Grand not to mention theybwere working withbPayPal and PayPal closed my acount beause all there errors. I was sent 30 debit cards from Walmart Debit and 40 Net Spend they are the same company they wrecked mu credit record i nevered ordered all those cards and its 6 points on your credit forveach card. PayPal cosed mynd account Skullu725 account as well as NetSpend withoutvacknowledging me i hadmy special needs an d my disability checks going to NetSpend they closed the acct Nov of 2016. And PayPal will give me no access to that accont they are saying its because they gave me a Business Card and gave me 1500 creditvhow was i to know thats how those cards work i never hadc one. .I went online shopping and odered 4 pools on csme to southgate wevput it up and the rafters ere cheap and broke.i got a call the next day from paypal telling me ibshould of never gotvthat credit. i tld them this was not my fault which it wasnt t was a paypal computer hlitch. This gave me nothing butvgrief rim paypal andcNetspendvover 8 months i had to be put on strng nerve mediine i almost had a heart attack.I told paypal ill tell u what as nice as i am and its not my fault ill cancel the ohercpools and giive you thev money back. I wrote a longbletter to CorporatePayPal and explained the situation nevercgot a letter back from them. TNows Its 1.5 years later andvpaypal sentvthevone pool i had up to collection even though thevgkblitchvwas notbmybfault. Theeycsent it to a collectin agency and made my credit loo worst. They hadalso sentvme 4 business cards as well as 6 regular paypal cards so more points on my credit. Recentlybthey gav evme a buy now andvpay later creditvivhad itvone daybtheyvclosed it the next saying will see howvmuch your buying on ebay for 6bmnths and give itvback.Iit was a lie itscbeen wayboverv6 months and i still dontbhavecthevpaypal credit.Andvi spentvthousands upon thousands. Upon thousands on ebay and othervstores my skully725 had 100 percentvfeedback as a buyer.My feedback was almost 2000. PayPall made errorsctwice on me i gotbpaaid by people whonowedcmevthru other companiescandctheyvwerecthinkingvthetvwere my customers and i did not send them merhandise and gave them thevmoney ment forvme on the skully725cacct and a different account i have now.Can you please Class Action Attorneysctell me if i havec3 class action law suits One for NetSoend. Closing myvacct adrdruptlyvwe withoutvcountacting myself andcsendingvme all these Fnetspend cardscwhen theyvputva block under my name.Also walmart and paypal oweingv me all tht moey and paypals errors so they locked me out ofthat skully725 acct and charged me for a glitchvtheirccomputers did on one oof the business cardscthey denied giving me any business cards and regularvpaypal cards which wrecked havoc on my creditvreprtcas well just like Netspend sending me nearly 3debitvcardsca wee and MetacBanksvother credit debit cards as well. Sincerely Laura ODea Denlar. 56 year old disabledc vets dauhter with an Autistic child looking forward to yourcletters.