Cell Phone Retailer Agrees to Settle Improper Pricing Claims
In an agreement similar to the one recently reached with tech giant Apple, a cellphone and accessories retailer has agreed to change its…
October 13, 2017 at 02:11 PM
4 minute read
In an agreement similar to the one recently reached with tech giant Apple, a cellphone and accessories retailer has agreed to change its sales practices and pay a $60,000 settlement with New Jersey to resolve claims that it violated consumer protection laws and regulations concerning the display of merchandise pricing and refund policies, the state Division of Consumer Affairs announced.
Attorney General Christopher Porrino and Sharon Joyce, the acting director of the DCA, on Oct. 12 announced the settlement with the retailer, Spring Communications, which operates 24 stores in the state.
The settlement with Spring Communications is similar to one the state entered into with tech giant Apple last month regarding its pricing information policies in its 12 New Jersey-based stores.
The DCA alleged that Spring Communications failed to post the selling price for more than 1,000 merchandise items. In addition, the DCA alleged that the company failed to post its refund policy in eight of its stores.
Failing to post selling prices is a violation of the Merchandise Pricing Statute within the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and failing to post refund policies is a violation of the Refund Policy Disclosure Act, the DCA said in a statement.
Among the types of merchandise Spring Communications sells are car chargers, cellphone cases, car dash ports, earbuds, selfie sticks and USB cables.
“The importance of displaying merchandise pricing and posting refund policies cannot be understated,” said Joyce in the statement.
Investigators from the division's Office of Consumer Protection visited the Spring Communications stores in March 2016. A verified complaint and summary action was filed on June 15, 2017, in the Superior Court Chancery Division in Essex County. The settlement is memorialized in a consent judgment which was filed on Sept. 26.
Spring Communications entered into the settlement without admitting any liability. In addition to the $60,000 payment, Spring Communications also agreed to not engage in any unfair or deceptive acts or practices, to not sell, attempt to sell or offer for sale merchandise without the total selling price being plainly marked by a stamp, tag, label or sign affixed to the merchandise or at the point where the merchandise is offered for sale, and to conspicuously post its refund policy in at least one of four required locations in its stores, the statement said.
In the Apple case, that settlement called for 4½-inch-by-3½-inch “pricing wedges” to be placed on each table where these devices are displayed for sale, to contain the total selling price. The pricing wedges will supplement Apple's existing in-store digital pricing system, which provides price information through apps and notifications that are launched from the devices themselves, Porrino said.
The division alleged that Apple's in-store digital pricing system violated the state's consumer protection laws because the pricing information was not continuously available for customers to view, making it necessary at times for customers to interact with a device or a sales representative to find how much the product costs.
OCP investigators found that while accessories and other items in Apple stores were marked with traditional price tags, the iPhones, iPods, iPads, iMacs, MacBooks and Apple Watches on display for customers to view and use were only priced digitally.
The New Jersey merchandise pricing statute, a part of the Consumer Fraud Act, requires prices to be plainly marked with a stamp, label or sign on or near the merchandise. The purpose of the law is to ensure that consumers know the price of an item as they look at it—and are not required to interact with the device or a sales representative.
During the inspections, the division also found that none of the Apple Stores in New Jersey was in compliance with the Refund Policy Disclosure Act, which requires that a retailer's refund policy be posted in at least one of the following locations: attached to the merchandise itself; attached to each cash register or point of sale, in a place where it is clearly visible to the buyer from the cash register; or posted at each store entrance used by the public.
Apple, which eliminated in-store cash registers years ago in favor of hand-held devices that allow employees to transact sales from anywhere in its stores, agreed to prominently display its refund policy on signs located at the public entrances to its stores, the statement said.
Contact the reporter at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Plan Suit
4 minute readHours After Trump Takes Office, Democratic AGs Target Birthright Citizenship Order
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1FTX One Year Later: The Impact on Examiner Practice in Bankruptcy Courts
- 2Gen AI Legal Contract Startup Ivo Announces $16 Million Series A Funding Round
- 3DOJ's Flawed Thinking in Challenging HPE-Juniper Merger
- 4Annual Self-Check: Testing For Bias On The Bench
- 5'None of Us Like It': How Expedited Summer Associate Recruiting Affects Law Students and the Firms Hiring Them
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250